analog or digital Why?

[selloutrr]

why do you choose to use what you do? any high bread ideas?

[KHAN]

I use digital (DP3 and two Motu 828's) because it is the only option for me financially. What would it cost to have 40 channels of analog at once????

[selloutrr]

40 channels you would be looking at 2 24 track 2" reel to reels, Studer, otari, mci. and a way of linking them, Lynx or console controller... umm $3-$35 grand per reel to reel ( used ) and $100-5k to sync them, or a $100K+ console not cheap but that is why major studios still get business and there trainded and knowledgable staff. I was thinking more about sound quality. you could get an analog recorder and ping pong like the old days!!! I'm experimenting with analog/digital hi-bred on drums, rythme, and Bass tracks, radar24 and 2" tape, recording the DI signal both digital and analog then run it back threw an amp and record it again, compressed, and eq'ed, and experimenting with mics so i can use the perfect signal and know just how it will sound on tape. along with a metronome and that sets the standard for building the drum tracks, once the rythme section is layed to a solid foundation i'll bulk erase the tape and start on the guitars probably layer them and ping pong a few tracks threw the sub buss and mix a 3 part harmony, then layer it over and over, retrack it a few more times and that will give me enough to cause dynamics and make it thick ( probably wont use more then two at at time ) lay down the vocals run them back into an amp and back to tape so i can use them both if i want, spinkle a lead and garnish to taste. Metronomes are our best friend when it comes to peicing things together. I hear Motu makes a nice converter. what do you think of apogee?

[Valkyrie Sound]

Digital: because even when you're doing classical music with only 8 tracks analog is too expensive to maintain and use. It's also SO much easier to edit and process...! :D Valky

[MusicWorkz]

Digital. Cost, convenience, flexibility. In reality, with the way we work, there is a fair amount of analog processing involved, so perhaps my correct answer is both. On my most recent project, however, we were dealing with 54-62 tracks in Protools. The only time we came into the analog world was during mixing, and even then, we included gear like the TC Sys6000 in the fray. Working in PT is extremely flexible and lets us do things (simple stuff like edits song sequencing) every easily, without sacrificing quality. To get the same results in analog would have blown our budgets to smithereens in both pre0 and post-production.

[Franknputer]

Screw digital - I'm going to build a 16-track that uses wax cylinders. Edison's dead, so he can't sue me over the technology. Plus - bad takes go into the oven! :D :wave:

[Wewus432]

Some of the most interesting sounds come from combining digital and analog signals and combining expensive and cheap hardware/software. BUT I don't know why anyone on any kind of a budget would use reel to reel technology. The cost are so prohibitive for analog and with digital you can do 100 times more with editing, effects, instruments, etc. So with analog it costs 20 times more and you can do 100 times less. Here's the other argument for analog, THEN you can move your analog tracks to digital. What's the fucking point of that, just make them digital to begin with.

[Lee Flier]

Notice no one mentions SOUND QUALITY... LOL. :D Umm... well I use digital for most of the reasons stated above: it's cheap and convenient and doesn't take up much space. Editing and such, I could care less, I'm old school and believe in actually committing to arrangements beforehand and playing songs all the way through, maybe with just a punch in or two. What a concept! If I had the money and space though, I'd use analog, cuz it still SOUNDS better for my purposes. I don't doubt that digital will catch up eventually though, probably within the decade, but as of now it hasn't quite. I WOULD like to try a RADAR setup with an analog console though, I'll bet it doesn't suck. --Lee

[KenElevenShadows]

Analog, because it sounds better; digital, because it's cheap and flexible. What analog does, it does much better than digital. What digital does, it does much better than analog. I like both -- for different reasons -- so I use both. I find the debate between analog/digital to be inane (I'm not talking about this thread necessarily, just about the debate in general). Digital is here, and it ain't going away. People realize that. I think that a lot of people just have a problem with BAD-sounding digital, which unfortunately is a lot of the lower-end stuff.

[Roto]

Peter Gabriel's "Security" was recorded digitally. Sounds pretty damn good to me. That was what, 1981?

[alphajerk]

digital, because it SOUNDS better ;) no hissssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

[coyote]

With analog you can 'saturate' the sound more easily. The same instruments that sound great in analog sound brittle and distorted in digital - until you spend many thousands in outboard gear. I don't have to compress an electric guitar to record it to analog. [quote]Originally posted by TheWewus: [b]Here's the other argument for analog, THEN you can move your analog tracks to digital. What's the fucking point of that, just make them digital to begin with.[/b][/quote]

[sign]

[quote]Originally posted by alphajerk: [b]digital, because it SOUNDS better ;) [/b][/quote]BOARD: EURODESK 8000 , because it SOUNDS better ?????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????? :D :D :D :wave:

[strat0124]

before it gets to the recorder and when it gets to the amp/speakers its analog....so there you have it!

[miroslav]

OK...who has this thread going off into "horizontal weirdness" mode...HUH!!!??? FIX YOUR DAMN POST!!! Don't you guy look at, or at least preview, what you post? It's a real bitch having to scroll down AND right when reading this tread.. :D

[miroslav]

Hmmm...it's either alpha's post or sign's...? Come on guys...cut 'em down a bit, so this thread is a little more manageable! :thu:

[KenElevenShadows]

>> Peter Gabriel's "Security" was recorded digitally. Sounds pretty damn good to me. That was what, 1981? >> Dunno, about that. It does sound good. There are some digital recordings early on that were pretty good. A lot of them were done on the Sony DASH, which I understand was a great-sounding, albeit super-expensive, system. There's a Replacements album, "Pleased To Meet Me", that I believe was recorded digitally, and it sounds good. BTW, when I make the remark about analog sounding better than digital, it's primarily aimed towards what most of us probably work with, perhaps something like a Digi001 vs. something like a Tascam r-t-r or something similar. When you go a little bit higher up the spectrum, with really great gear, I do think that digital sounds really great.

[FoxTick]

the recording medium is only as good as the music recorded on it.

[alphajerk]

[quote]Originally posted by sign: [b] [quote]Originally posted by alphajerk: [b]digital, because it SOUNDS better ;) [/b][/quote]BOARD: EURODESK 8000 , because it SOUNDS better [/b][/quote]nope, because it was the cheapest fucking board i could buy with the most channels ;) i dont need signal purity to run headphone sends... most of the time the artists are distorting the piss out of the cans.

[not coaster MODERATOR]

AJ made it wide body $5.00 fine

[Uh Clem]

digital for about 10 yrs now - [b]sound[/b]s great, more flexible, more predictable, less expensive than comparable [b]sound[/b]ing analog gear. there, I said it - sound - I like the sound I like the sound I like the sound

[alphajerk]

[quote]Originally posted by Cereal: [b]AJ made it wide body $5.00 fine[/b][/quote]think of it as analog saturation ;)