It seems that everyone(almost) has jumped into the digital bandwagon to make their recordings. If digital is so great, why are we adding analog plug-ins to all our computer software? Analog users use words like"warm" when they refer to an analog recording as compared to a digital one and many manufacturers are bending over backwards to put tubes in their gear. The line between digital and analog is sometimes blurred with the creation of hybrid units,and even now a lot of analog users mix their technology with digital. I would like to hear from a few die hard analog folks out there as to HOW you think analog is really better, especially since 99% of everything recorded now is eventually sent to digital anyways.:^)

------------------
Smitty

Well,

It comes down to what exactly the human ear can decipher. The human ear cannot (no matter what 'analog affectionato' claims) tell the difference between digital 44.1 sampling rate and above compared to the real sound. However, it(your ear) can hear or (pick-up) defective equipment that didn't record or reproduce the original signal correctly to begin with (this is true with any recording or playback device). Digital is much easier to manipulate (just a bunch of numbers). The possibilities are endless. Analog punch-in recorders also can manipulate but with much more difficulty (depends on your skill level).

The warm sound is really a mask to me. It is maybe what you intended in a performance with the little stuff(mistakes) being absorbed by the swell. Digital gives it back just the way it received it (all of it). Of course, then you start the 'circle' argument that a great analog recorder will do the same if not more. A funny argument....what more is there than the original collection of recorded sound waves.

Basically once you split the pie(sound waves)
enough times and put them back together so that the ear cannot tell the difference.....then it just becomes preferrence or prejudice...the words are interchangable with the old struggling to learn the new. Learning is cool....that is the key!

Overall
I personally use both mediums. I know analog
and have learned digital.

In the end CD's are digital period...end of argument! But cassettes still sell...preferrence, prejudice, or pocket book (?)

Pianoman66,

I agree with some of what you said, but I think you paint too perfect a picture of the CD quality that we've all come to know for almost 20 years.

I find there is a definite fall-off to the "digital" purity and clarity at soft db levels. Quantization noise exists in many samples I have listened to (mainly solo instruments) that is not pleasant. Especially when decays trail off.

Of course with 24 bit and 32 bit coming down the pike of consumer affordable gear, this may not be an issue.

But there still is a large element of Yamaha or Roland, Mac or PC, Coke or Pepsi involved.

Headroom has a lot to do with it. A concept that changes with the word 'digital'. Clipping is a real concern where in analog you could hit the red and it's ok. Analog tape has a natural compression where as digital does not.

So I can see where Smitty is coming from.

Regards,

Jason

Point well taken, Jason. That is at least one benefit of analog,CLIPPING. As much as I hate to admit it, I've clipped digital and its not a pretty thing, but a careful level adjustment is all you really need to make that right.What youre actually getting with analog pre-amps is a form of light compression , I still tend to lean in the direction of pianoman. The only digital I dont like is ATRAC compression used in minidisk. With analog ,the quality of a recording is dependent on the tape width,speed,the quality of the tracking deck and even the formulation of the recording tape. With digital, a quality recording is very dependent not only on the bit resolution of the converters, but also on the quality of the converters. A 16bit converter from XYZ may not be of the quality of one from company ZYX.
I think most of us believe we can hear better than we actually can. If we could hear what a perfect set of ears hear as compared to what most of us hear, I think the difference would be astounding. If you have good hearing, be thankful and keep those walkman headphones turned down or you wont have it for long.
I used to think I had a bad left channel on my monitors until I put on headphones and listened both ways, to my amazement, I am missing some high frequency in my left ear. I attribute this to the time I went shooting with a buddy and he had an antique powder load pistol. He aimed and fired this thing on my left pretty close to my ear. After that my ear just rang for awhile and now I have permenant frequency loss in that ear. At least I am aware of it and can compensate for it in my mixes. Its not extremely serious, but I know its there.I seem to have low frequency hearing better than my wife, because many a time I have heard rumbles in the distance that she never heard. I believe that just like noses and eyes are all different, so are ears, and everyone has a little different "equalizer" built into their inner ear. You might hear a tone just like me, but hear it in a different way.Digital seems"harsh" to some people, but then again that may be due to a mix that should have recieved some eq treatment. I know a lot of studios will try and compensate for the cheap systems most people listen to , by boosting highs, only problem is when you play it on a good system, you have to turn the highs down some.


------------------
Smitty