Analog recording vs Digital recording

Kyrpajyra

Kyrpajyra

Banned
Well-known member
If this is a wrong board for this topic, you can move it to a suitable one.

Anyways, saw this video today and became a bit worried about the sound that you can get if you're working strictly ITB.



As you can probably hear. The analog recording with all the chaos going on with it ends up sounding more natural and pleasing to ear than the digital one, especially if you're aiming for that authentic 80's and early 90's mix.

But here's the kicker. That analog recording went thru an analog console and its preamps and channel strip, it wasn't only tape. And to add to this point. Michael Wagener went digital already back in the 80s, he just used outboard analog gear + console with it and still had great sounding albums.

So what i'm thinking is that maybe you could do it the Wagener style and use a DAW with analog outboard gear to nail that old school sound. Any thoughts?
 
Tone Monster said:
Digital has come so far in the last 10 to 15 years that most top producers prefer it. Now obviously that’s for tracking only. A lot of them still use analog outboard for processing.
Click to expand...
It's a matter of taste i guess. The digital sounded squashed and less smoother on that clip imo and that's what gives it that "amateur" sound.
 
We could talk about this for years…. Actually, we have. But remember, many of the absolute best in the world in all genres of music have been ITB for a few decades. If something sounds “amateur”, it’s not because it’s digital, it’s because that person doesn’t know what they are doing to a professional level yet, simple as that. Many engineers mix strictly ITB and have put huge number one records, in fact the majority of the biggest records in Nashville for instance are all ITB. Digital is not the handicap. A hybrid system is even more common these days as well.
 
VESmedic said:
We could talk about this for years…. Actually, we have. But remember, many of the absolute best in the world in all genres of music have been ITB for a few decades. If something sounds “amateur”, it’s not because it’s digital, it’s because that person doesn’t know what they are doing to a professional level yet, simple as that. Many engineers mix strictly ITB and have put huge number one records, in fact the majority of the biggest records in Nashville for instance are all ITB. Digital is not the handicap. A hybrid system is even more common these days as well.
Click to expand...
While this is a good argument. It really does not apply to this video as this video compared raw recordings without any processing.

Also imo almost nothing worth to listen to hasn't been released after the 90's and a alot of this is due to bad souning mixes since 2000s.
 
Kyrpajyra said:
It's a matter of taste i guess. The digital sounded squashed and less smoother on that clip imo and that's what gives it that "amateur" sound.
Click to expand...
In the example you posted the analog DID sound better, but there are so many variables. I was listening to Bob Rock the other day praise digital and in the tape days they were having to EQ the highs back in right off the reels. Kills the transients as well. YMMV of course.
 
Tone Monster said:
In the example you posted the analog DID sound better, but there are so many variables. I was listening to Bob Rock the other day praise digital and in the tape days they were having to EQ the highs back in right off the reels. Kills the transients as well. YMMV of course.
Click to expand...



I knew I liked you….


There is a giant myth out there that everything sounds better on tape etc… that is complete garbage, Atleast In the mixes and metal I like. It’s like all these guys on YouTube trying to tell everyone how to use “tape saturation” in their mixes etc for metal and how much it JUST RULEZ…. It doesn’t, at all. And I know for a fact, many modern metal mixers worth their salt would absolutely never apply tape saturation across the mix buss or really anywhere, maybe overheads etc. but it’s because exactly of what you said: tape absolutely killer transients, and destroys your low end making it boomy cloudy etc, and destroys your high end… in essence, it neuters everything. If people are actually listening critically, and ACTUALLY truly level matching their mixes one with “tape saturation l and one without, I’d be surprised if they said the tape saturation version sounds better, they are lying to themselves if they think so.
 
Tone Monster said:
In the example you posted the analog DID sound better, but there are so many variables. I was listening to Bob Rock the other day praise digital and in the tape days they were having to EQ the highs back in right off the reels. Kills the transients as well. YMMV of course.
Click to expand...
What are these variables then?
VESmedic said:
I knew I liked you….


There is a giant myth out there that everything sounds better on tape etc… that is complete garbage, Atleast In the mixes and metal I like. It’s like all these guys on YouTube trying to tell everyone how to use “tape saturation” in their mixes etc for metal and how much it JUST RULEZ…. It doesn’t, at all. And I know for a fact, many modern metal mixers worth their salt would absolutely never apply tape saturation across the mix buss or really anywhere, maybe overheads etc. but it’s because exactly of what you said: tape absolutely killer transients, and destroys your low end making it boomy cloudy etc, and destroys your high end… in essence, it neuters everything. If people are actually listening critically, and ACTUALLY truly level matching their mixes one with “tape saturation l and one without, I’d be surprised if they said the tape saturation version sounds better, they are lying to themselves if they think so.
Click to expand...
I'd say that recording to a well maintained tape deck will yield a more pleasing sound than recording thru an interface. One of the reasons is the high end roll off that tape machines give you.
 
Kyrpajyra said:
What are these variables then?

I'd say that recording to a well maintained tape deck will yield a more pleasing sound than recording thru an interface. One of the reasons is the high end roll off that tape machines give you.
Click to expand...
The variables you mentioned in the OP
 
Kyrpajyra said:
What are these variables then?

I'd say that recording to a well maintained tape deck will yield a more pleasing sound than recording thru an interface. One of the reasons is the high end roll off that tape machines give you.
Click to expand...


I think, once again you are looking at this in too narrow of a viewpoint. While it is your opinion that “no good sounding records have been made since the early 90s”, id say you are for sure in the minority with that one. Many mixers ( billy decker being one of them) spends all of his time trying to get away from the problems of analog, and doesn’t understand why plugin manufacturers try to mimic many of the issues with analog like excess noise etc. and he’s mixed what, 30-40 #1 country hits? I mean sure, everyone has their opinion, but still. Records sound different nowadays for soooo many more reason other than just they aren’t tracked using tape. Anyone would be hard pressed to identify the differences in the 80s vs today and identify why it sounds different and exactly what about it makes it sound better specifically because of tape. Sounds, pretty impossible.
 
VESmedic said:
I think, once again you are looking at this in too narrow of a viewpoint. While it is your opinion that “no good sounding records have been made since the early 90s”, id say you are for sure in the minority with that one. Many mixers ( billy decker being one of them) spends all of his time trying to get away from the problems of analog, and doesn’t understand why plugin manufacturers try to mimic many of the issues with analog like excess noise etc. and he’s mixed what, 30-40 #1 country hits? I mean sure, everyone has their opinion, but still. Records sound different nowadays for soooo many more reason other than just they aren’t tracked using tape. Anyone would be hard pressed to identify the differences in the 80s vs today and identify why it sounds different and exactly what about it makes it sound better specifically because of tape. Sounds, pretty impossible.
Click to expand...
Never said that it's only because tape that mixes sound different nowdays, but tape sure helps to achieve that mix easier i'd say.
 
Tape is far better sonically imo…but ya have to know how to work with it. Unfortunately most of the people that knew are fewer and fewer and with no big budgets, you won’t see or hear much of it. Digital is cheaper and easier to work with….much easier to “ fix /edit things.
Have many fond memories of recording on my buddies Tascam 1/2“ 8 track and studio recording on a Studer 2” 24 track…
 
I think there is so much to digest in a conversation like this. First off, the perfect drum sounds, dead on guitar parts, etc don't sound authentic. We all know those "imperfections" make a recording sound good.

The Foo Fighters "Wasting Light" is tape and sounds amazing
 
There's benefits and drawbacks to both.

Just because something is analog doesn't make it better, except in the realm of personal taste. Digital certainly saves studio time.

I don't like most modern digital recordings, certainly, but some of my favorite records from the 90s are early digital recordings.

I think the reason I don't like most modern recordings has more to do with the banality of drum samples, quantized everything, and everyone using the same gear - the fact that most of these recordings are digital is a "correlation=\=causation" phenomenon.
 
I have always said this ,

Alot of the mics that were designed way back when were voiced to sort of counter balance some of that high frequency loss from commonly used signal chains.. So when you look at a u87ai or a akg c12 everyone now always says they are "bright" and yes they are bright but they were way less bright when using a neve console and 2 " tape / Pultecs. Think of it sort of like a see saw but balancing frequency response , right?

Now comes digital and there is no high freq loss so ..... yea .... there it is !
 
Kyrpajyra said:
If this is a wrong board for this topic, you can move it to a suitable one.

Anyways, saw this video today and became a bit worried about the sound that you can get if you're working strictly ITB.



As you can probably hear. The analog recording with all the chaos going on with it ends up sounding more natural and pleasing to ear than the digital one, especially if you're aiming for that authentic 80's and early 90's mix.

But here's the kicker. That analog recording went thru an analog console and its preamps and channel strip, it wasn't only tape. And to add to this point. Michael Wagener went digital already back in the 80s, he just used outboard analog gear + console with it and still had great sounding albums.

So what i'm thinking is that maybe you could do it the Wagener style and use a DAW with analog outboard gear to nail that old school sound. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...


There is no doubt that tape is awesome. But it is also inconsistent. Digital is snappy and retains those highs. So the answer is.. use digital and DAWs for all their advantages and use consoles and analogs for the depth and the summing. Use your DAW like a tape machine. You can use it to sum to groups, for routing, for editing etc. It's great. Then pump that out through a console and use some EQ on board. If that isn't precise enough, you can hit it with a plugin or external EQ. Hardware compressors still sound better than plugins. That's just fact. Whether anyone knows or cares though, that's a whole other thing.

All to say, analog summing gives the depth and spread back. Tames those tight highs some. Digital tends to overhype the highs because it is so easy to push them up there and not lose any high end. This is why Hybrid mixing is so popular now and that is what you are referring to.

There's a reason why a lot of big producers and in demand people essentially work ITB and then send stems out through their Neves or API's or other consoles. They then will hit the tracks with hardware compressors where they really make a statement and finally some good 2 bus EQ and compressor for level and glue. Consoles technically can be replaced by those overpriced summing boxes but having a board is still cool. I love my 20-8 board.

So let's not kid ourselves. Technically a lot of the big dogs ARE ITB but the gear they are using to get the sound in there isn't digital. That's analog. 500 series preamps, old compressors, and various eq. UAD and other plugin manufacturers do an excellent job for sure but the statement hardware is hard to beat.
 
Oh! I just want to add that the most important factor is always going to be the playing though so even the digital version can sound great if the mix is good. It is just that you will probably prefer the analog summed one if they are back to back. It is a bit cork sniffing but that's why we buy so much gear right?
 
Kapo_Polenton said:
So let's not kid ourselves. Technically a lot of the big dogs ARE ITB but the gear they are using to get the sound in there isn't digital. That's analog. 500 series preamps, old compressors, and various eq. UAD and other plugin manufacturers do an excellent job for sure but the statement hardware is hard to beat.
Click to expand...
... which is why there's an endless trail of emulating plugins being developed. People's thirst for such things has never waned, not for a minute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top