Page 1 of 2
#1
I've always been interested in analog and vintage equipment for recording, but many people tell me that I'm crazy and that digital is far superior. I'm not really sure what to believe. Can most people even tell if a song was recorded on analog? Thanks for the help.
#3
Listen to anything recorded before 1990 that isn't remastered, then listen to anything recorded after 1990. Tell yourself what you think.

You, good sir, have not gone over to your friends house after a hard night of drinking to find 2 dudes passed out in the same room both holding their own flaccid cocks in hand, passed out, with porn on the tv.
#4
Digital is far superior & easier, having said that, the Foo Fighters recorded their whole last album on tape. It has a much more raw sound to it.
You want some more seeneyj hate? WELL YOU CAN'T HAVE IT

You're all a bunch of f*cking slaves! - Jim Morrison

UG Awards
1st: Biggest Ego
1st: Most Likely To Become Famous
1st: Most Pretentious User
#5
I can tell a difference, analog is good for somethings and digital is good for others. It is a matter of personal taste.

Analog lends itself well to the "feel" of the music, digital is a more polished sound that is also easier to use. It really depends on the overall mood you want to establish.
In my heart I'm with you

every night
Last edited by palm mute at Aug 20, 2011,
#6
There is most definitely a difference. I'm not the best at hearing it on low-quality, recordings, however, but there is definitely a difference.
OBEY THE MIGHTY SHITKICKER
#7
Analog synths.

They sound like beautiful gloriousness compared with digital synths. But each have their purposes, ya know?
#8
The main reason people care is because the industry switched to digital back when it was vastly inferior. I mean, in 1995 or so, there was a HUGE loss of sound information if you recorded a track digitally. Nowadays, it's pretty much impossible to tell an analog track recorded by a good engineer from a digital track recorded by a good engineer. The main difference is that editing digital tracks is far easier.

Of course, that's just recording--in things like distortion and delay pedals the difference tends to be enormous.
Money beats soul every time.

Money beats soul...every time.

Money...beats soul...every...goddamn...time.
#9
Both serve their functions. Digital for most bands without mass amounts of money is just more viable and affordable. I don't think heavy bands can benefit from recording with vintage stuff. If you have an old school Marshall or Fender I think that it brings out the guitar tone a bit more ; it colors it just the right way. Analog is expensive. I find that most people assume digital = pro tools. You need to find a good engineer. I think if you record live then do some over dubs ; and not over-produce you can have a pretty authentic sounding record.

That being said I play a LP into a Marshall Stack......i cream my pants for analog stuff. Foo's and Slash di their stuff analog ( but I'm pretty sure it also went to digital for storage purposes ) in any case.....you have to know what sound you want.
#10
If the recording equipment is of very high quality and a sampling frequency of more than 40 kHz is used to record the digital track, to the human ear the result is indistinguishable from its analog equivalent.
Dear God, do you actually answer prayers?

Yes, but only in a way indistinguishable from random luck or the result of your own efforts.
#11
Quote by Mad Marius
If the recording equipment is of very high quality and a sampling frequency of more than 40 kHz is used to record the digital track, to the human ear the result is indistinguishable from its analog equivalent.

No, the analog equivalent will always sound different, because tape will colour the signal.

To generalise, analog sounds more coloured (high end rolled off and compressed), whereas digital is a lot cleaner (which some people feel is sterile)

Digital is far easier to use, editing is a lot faster, and as far as price:quality goes is a much better option. Good quality analog recording gear is a lot more expensive.

By using high quality analog preamps and other gear, you can replicate analog colouration on digital recordings.
#12
There's a difference yes, but you can't just say 'analog recording equipment is superior to digital'. It's too vague, which digital recording equipment? You'll find major studios often having old high quality 24 track tape machines for instance which they'll run certain instruments through after recording digitally in order to get that sound if required. But high end old gear like that is going to be much less low fi sounding than a 4 track you can pick up for £50 on ebay.
Analog is still very much used in other ways too, away from tape you've got tube preamps, analog desks and so forth which are all still in use. A lot of people would say that the best approach is not to rule out either, digital is ideal for editing, analog has desireable sounds so using them both is often a good idea if possible. Which is generally what is done in the major studios.

There are plenty of great sounding and shit sounding albums recorded on all analog or digital too. If you're hearing an album and you think the sound is terrible and the mix sucks, then it's unlikley that it's the fault of analog or digital, it's perfectly possible to record great stuff with either and the same rules apply to both about getting the right sound in the room and getting the right mic placements and all that. Recording a guitar amp with a tone you aren't happy with can go through all the beautiful vintage high end gear and be using advanced digital processing too, you can do it all you like but you're going to be fighting a losing battle the entire way because you didn't get the right sound from the source.
#13
Its easier to get a good sound with analog recording equipment. It is however old, expensive and more prone to breaking down.

Its easy to get CD quality on digital these days and its much cheaper and portable. Its pretty simple too. The only thing I miss is the nice natural compression.

After 10 years of editing and mixing digitally, I don't think i could go back to analog.
#15
I'd say analog recording is a better representation of what a band sounds like, but that's not always a good thing.
#17
Personally I like analog more. I only really prefer digital when it comes to heavy metal albums with the exception of remastered albums.
If Rock is a life-style, then Metal's an addiction

Yelloooow!


Of The


UG Challenge

#18
Quote by JohnSmith85
Can an album recorded digitally be transfered to vinyl or would that just be pointless?

It can be, and these days it often is. Some people like the way it provides you with a physical product with lyric inserts and intricate design and whatnot. If you have a good stereo, a digitally recorded album cut to 180g vinyl can sound heavenly.
#19
Quote by JohnSmith85
Can an album recorded digitally be transfered to vinyl or would that just be pointless?

It's both possible AND pointless.
Quote by dudetheman
So what? I wasted like 5 minutes watching DaddyTwoFoot's avatar.


Metalheads are the worst thing that ever happened to metal.
#20
Quote by The Madcap
Audiophiles convince themselves they can tell a difference after they've spent $20,000 on a sound system. I'm not one to care much about production so it doesn't matter to me.


fixed.
return 0;

Quote by jsync
And I've eaten at some of Australia's best pizzerias.



SOUNDCLOUD
. com / fancy-elle
#21
Quote by littlephil
No, the analog equivalent will always sound different, because tape will colour the signal.


Really, what color? I like blue.

The fact that a signal is digitally sampled rather that continuous doesn't make any difference to the human ear, provided the sampling frequency is high enough. Any differences come from the recording/processing method, which may introduce distortion, may filter certain frequencies or introduce new ones.
Dear God, do you actually answer prayers?

Yes, but only in a way indistinguishable from random luck or the result of your own efforts.
#22
Quote by Mad Marius
Really, what color? I like blue.

The fact that a signal is digitally sampled rather that continuous doesn't make any difference to the human ear, provided the sampling frequency is high enough. Any differences come from the recording/processing method, which may introduce distortion, may filter certain frequencies or introduce new ones.

'Colour the sound' means alter it and you know it. It's well established that tape and different types of tape for instance do alter the frequencies emphasised and compress the signal to an extent,.
#23
So are these supposed "audiophiles" high or something? I would think there would be some kind of proof if something sounds different with analog. I like the idea of analog just because I'm a vintage junkie, but I think the analog vs. digital thing is becoming a mental/emotional deal other than something that is factual.
#26
Quote by littlephil
No, the analog equivalent will always sound different, because tape will colour the signal.

To generalise, analog sounds more coloured (high end rolled off and compressed), whereas digital is a lot cleaner (which some people feel is sterile)

Digital is far easier to use, editing is a lot faster, and as far as price:quality goes is a much better option. Good quality analog recording gear is a lot more expensive.

By using high quality analog preamps and other gear, you can replicate analog colouration on digital recordings.

This is correct, listen to this man.
#27
I don't think half of this thread actually understand what analog recording involves at all.

If you think that tube preamps, analog mixing desks and recording on tape as opposed to recording digitally makes no difference to the sound then your ears are broken. This is not a matter of vinyl vs wavs or something, this is a matter of fundamentals of recording. All preamps colour the signal to an extent, some more than others regardless of the type. Analog mixing desks definately colour the sound in their own ways, there is no one 'sound' of analog, it depends on the desk, the preamp, the recording method and eveyrthing else that also applies to digital too.
Most major studios will often have big old desks like a decent neve in there for this very reason, digital is by no means disliked by hardly any serious places either, but pretending that there's no difference is insane, and like i say, it sounds as if most people in here have no ****ing idea what they're talking about. A tube preamp for instance or recording on tape as opposed to recording digitial changes the harmonic content of a signal, that isn't in the realm of bullshit, it's an objective fact.
Last edited by Zoot Allures at Aug 21, 2011,
#28
Quote by JohnSmith85
I've always been interested in analog and vintage equipment for recording, but many people tell me that I'm crazy and that digital is far superior. I'm not really sure what to believe. Can most people even tell if a song was recorded on analog? Thanks for the help.


No, most people can't tell. So sound aside:

Portability: Digital > Analog

Digital wins.
Quote by progdude93
my fetish is dudes with dicks small enough to pee on their own sacks.
#29
Quote by Jostry
No, most people can't tell. So sound aside:

Portability: Digital > Analog

Digital wins.

You don't know what you're talking about. As i've been pointing out in this thread, most big studios will use analog gear for a reason. This is not a discussion about vinyl against wavs or something where you'd be correct, this is a discussion about fundamental practices of recording music, something you clearly don't know much about or you wouldn't say things like 'digital > analog'.

They both are used for important purposes in music. A fairly common practice would be to run digitally recorded drums through a good quality tape machine for instance because the compression and added harmonics content (often called 'warmth' ) is a desireable thing to have at times. This is one example that comes to mind of why both are often used. It's got nothing to do with portability at all, so stop going on about things you don't understand, this applies to apparently most of this thread who don't have a ****ing clue about recording music. It's not very difficult to learn a few basic facts.

Most modern records are still using plenty of analog gear in the recording process throughout mixing and mastering, a lot of analog outboard gear is still used , aswell as good powered plugins and other digital stuff, it's not often that you can ever really say anything was recorded entirely 'digitally' anyway, just that studios are not entirely analog anymore, but they're still using plenty of analog things. This idea that no one can tell the difference is stupid because all the outboard gear will have its own qualities anyway, regardless of it being digital or analog actually.
Last edited by Zoot Allures at Aug 21, 2011,
#30
I was wondering if anyone knows if Opeth use analog on their albums? I think what I'm going to do for recording is use a multi track analog tape machine and then convert the music into wav format to make a CD. Would this technically be considered digital or analog? It would be analog until it was converted to wav.
#31
Quote by JohnSmith85
I was wondering if anyone knows if Opeth use analog on their albums? I think what I'm going to do for recording is use a multi track analog tape machine and then convert the music into wav format to make a CD. Would this technically be considered digital or analog? It would be analog until it was converted to wav.

Most studios do use plenty of analog gear, it's just that digital software like pro tools is used to make life easier with recording and editing and obviously mixing too, but analog is certainly not removed from the studios. You look at any seriously major studio and you will see loads of nice old compressors and preamps and EQs and so on. These things are not good just because they're analog, but it happens to be true that a lot of good gear is analog and is still used.
I don't really understand where people are getting this 'no one can tell the difference' thing from since you'd have a very hard time finding any album that does not have analog gear used within the recording or in the mixing and mastering stage. If people believe compressors do nothing, or that a tube preamp sounds no different to another one then they can live in their own ignorance of reality if they so wish.

edit: but maybe you're thinking of recording in a more old school way, such as recording basically all on tape with not much editing in pro tools or such, but i'm just pointing out that it's unlikley that any album is not using some analog gear.
#32
I have always had issues with pro tools. My main problem is people who make it SO obvious when they copy and paste tracks. And although VST's are nice, I feel somewhat cheated when real instruments aren't used. I feel pro tools has its advantages, but for some reason I like the concept of analog more like it just seems more "real" or "organic" to me.
#33
Quote by JohnSmith85
I have always had issues with pro tools. My main problem is people who make it SO obvious when they copy and paste tracks. And although VST's are nice, I feel somewhat cheated when real instruments aren't used. I feel pro tools has its advantages, but for some reason I like the concept of analog more like it just seems more "real" or "organic" to me.

VST what? VST plugins are all sorts of things, not just a synth plugin or some such. Recording a guitar with a micced up amp into pro tools is no less 'organic' than anything else. The question of improving the sound you get, or getting a better sound off the bat is all about how you record it, which includes looking at what gear you're using.
#34
Zoot, another thing that colours the signal is the engineer's technique and ability. Just saying. And VSTs still require you to have a knowledge of sound mechanics and such to make them sound good, it pisses me off when someone listens to something with such intense Wave manipulation and production, and then dismiss it because "it took no skill".
#35
Quote by Zoot Allures
VST what? VST plugins are all sorts of things, not just a synth plugin or some such. Recording a guitar with a micced up amp into pro tools is no less 'organic' than anything else. The question of improving the sound you get, or getting a better sound off the bat is all about how you record it, which includes looking at what gear you're using.


I meant to say like when someone uses a usb midi controller to play all the instruments. I've heard people play something like a guitar part on a midi controller, and then they drag it to a different track and change the instrument and maybe slightly change the pitch and I think it's pretty much cheating. It's like say I play a guitar solo very slowly and then speed it up on pro tools to make it sound like I am actually playing that fast. I just think with pro tools that it makes it so easy to cheat.
#36
Digital recording (use of ProTools and high quality mixers, etc.) will make the records sound clearer, crisper, etc.

But some components of the recording process should be analogue such as some ribbon mics, guitar amps, etc.
GEAR
Epiphone SG-400
Marshall 1987 JCM-800 2210 100W

Proud Member of:
The SG Owners Unite
Marshall Amplification
EHX Users Guild

The True Eccentric Tea Drinking Appreciation Preservation Society

#37
Quote by BK202
Zoot, another thing that colours the signal is the engineer's technique and ability. Just saying. And VSTs still require you to have a knowledge of sound mechanics and such to make them sound good, it pisses me off when someone listens to something with such intense Wave manipulation and production, and then dismiss it because "it took no skill".

Well yeah, the entire process of mixing and recording and mastering takes a lot of skill. It's difficult, and everyone has their own way of going about it.
#38
But don't you agree that the copying and pasting in most modern songs is completely obvious?
#39
Quote by JohnSmith85
I meant to say like when someone uses a usb midi controller to play all the instruments. I've heard people play something like a guitar part on a midi controller, and then they drag it to a different track and change the instrument and maybe slightly change the pitch and I think it's pretty much cheating. It's like say I play a guitar solo very slowly and then speed it up on pro tools to make it sound like I am actually playing that fast. I just think with pro tools that it makes it so easy to cheat.

Why should anyone give a ****? If you found out that Slash and Jimi and whoever it is you personally listen to did this, would you all of a sudden dislike the music?

Because if you would, you're some kind of tard.
Page 1 of 2