What can veteran sound engineers (like Bruce Swedien) say about digital technology?

[skunky_funk]

For once, I wanna hear expert opinion from someone like Bruce Swedien regarding the DIGITAL vs. ANALOG debates.

 

Just a recall, many say:

 

- analog sounds fatter

- analog sounds more dynamic

- analog is more pleasing to hear

 

but also many say:

 

- digital is cheaper

- digital is better for editing

- digital is more consistent

 

I would like the old people to speak more of experience, and why everyone seems to switch to digital now...

[Phil O'Keefe]

I'm not Bruce, but I've been at this long enough (over two decades ) that I've worked with both - a lot. IMO, each has advantages and disadvantages.

 

For me, I always hated the fact that what I put into analog wasn't what I got back out - especially over time. Head bumps change the bottom (there's some of your "warmth"). HF content changes with repeated playbacks and with long term storage. Tape is big and bulky and takes a lot of room to store, and you'd better store it properly or you'll be sorry later. It's also pretty darned expensive, and keeping an analog deck properly cared for (bias, alignment, cleaning and degaussing the tape path, etc.) can be a PITA, but really, digital isn't much better - only "different" in that regard. Making backups, defragging drives, etc.

 

True, there is a cool sound with analog. And while I appreciate that (and don't really want to get into the whole "which sounds better?" debate), one of the things I really miss the most about the analog days was the tendency of people - musicians - to "get it right" to begin with while tracking. There was less of the "fix it in the editing / mix stage" attitude. Yes, editing is MUCH easier with digital, but that also means that some people have come to rely on that to make things "tight" instead of good old fashoned practice and musicianship. And there's also a trend towards "making everything perfect" that I find a bit disturbing. Like a Navajo rug, I want a few imperfections in my music - a bit of humanity.

 

I do like the recall and automation capabilities that digital offers. For the way I work (usually juggling several projects at once), that's become indespensible to me. I can't speak for everyone else, but for me, that's one major reason why I use digital as my primary recording medium these days.

 

Overall, I like digital, and I use that more than I use analog - although I still have an analog deck, and I still use it for some things. To me, they're just tools, and I try not to get religious about either one.

[Paully]

Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe

I'm not Bruce, but I've been at this long enough (over two decades ) that I've worked with both - a lot. IMO, each has advantages and disadvantages.

 

 

Hi Phil,

In your opinion, has any manufacturer come close to simulating or modeling the great tape decks used for say, slap echoes? I find that for a general echo in a loud, cluttered mix or as a pre-delay for reverb, digital works fine. When the echo is featured as a part of a highlighted instrument or vocal, I'll still run through a deck if possible. Sure would be nice to have it all in a digital module. Any suggestions? Thanks, Paul

[blue2blue]

Not Bruce either, but I have to say that whatever analog's other merits (and I ASSUME we're implicitly talking about analog storage media -- not just a straight analog wire) that "more dynamic" isn't among them. (As in having dynamic range, yeah?)

 

Who would even say that?

 

___________

 

Okey, now I've read the rest of the thread. I think Phil's comments closely match my own thoughts about the downside of analog storage media.

 

I've owned 10 analog tape machines (and had more than a few others under my control for varying periods) from mono full track (with no capstan!) to 8 track 1/2 inch. (Sorry, kids, no 16 track 2" Studer in the closet.) And, working in commercial studios, I worked on 16's and the occasional 24 (we're talking 80s, here, and low budget, but still including a few Studers, etc).

 

And I have to say that a very well-maintained, high end analog system certainly has it's charms. But I can't afford 'em.

 

And in the range I can afford, there's simply no question at all that digital storage and production systems simply offer much higher potential quality than the analog systems that would be available to me new or used in this price range.

 

Now, if someone wants to buy and refurb a classic old tape machine as a labor of love, I say, more power to him, I'd like to come over and drink a Wild Cherry Pepsi [product placement -- it's everywhere] while I watched him work and tell stories about the good ol' days when I recorded punk bands like Pig Children and Love Canal onto limping TASCAM 8 tracks with broken dbx (isn't it always broken on a channel or two?).

 

 

But one thing that definitely amuses me -- though it's ultimately kind of depressing -- are those who argue passionately for the joys and subtle beauties of analog tape and the artful use of tape saturation -- and then you find out they're using some 16 track machine that uses 1/4" tape and they're slamming that saturation level signal into a tinky dbx NR on the way to the 'magic' medium...

 

I mean, that's just pathetic.

[John Sayers]

I'm not Bruce either - but I have had 4 decades of recording experience - I turned 60 this year.

 

I love how convenient, simple to use and more importantly how Damn Quiet digital is. Noise and frequency response is the curse of analogue - that slap echo sounds cool because each delay has less highs and more noise.

 

I'll never go back to analogue - ever! and digital is only just starting.

 

cheers

john

[MrKnobs]

Since Bruce is still away, I'll put in my two cents as well.

 

I've been recording on all manner of media since 1970 or so. I've owned a couple of commercial studios and I currently make part of my living running a little one out of my house. I've used 24 track 2" back in the day, as well as 8 track 1/2" before I had a commercial shop. I migrated to TDRS digital tape quite a few years back, and now I use a dedicated hard disk recorder in conjunction with a digital mixer and Adobe Audition for my music recording.

 

At work, I'm a research scientist and one of the studies I'm principal investigator on involves studying the acoustic properties of porous pavements. As you can imagine, the university has the best recording and test gear that money can buy. I even have the use of anechoic and reverberant chambers. At the job, it isn't "sounds great" that's the critera, it's "precisely accurate measurements" that's the goal. At work I mostly use a mobile recording system (on vehicle) that relies on about $50,000 worth of microphones, preamps, and signal analyzers, but ultimately winds up as 48kHz 24 bit Adobe Audition tracks on a Gateway laptop.

 

So that's where I'm coming from, here's what I think.

 

To paraphrase what others have said, analog tape is less accurate than digital recording in a pleasing way. Meaning you get warmth from the head bump and the gentle high frequency rolloff of the tape. But the major factor is how tape sounds when it's slammed, the saturation / compression / distortion characteristic of good tape with wide track width for low(er) noise. Everybody is trying to build a box that emulates this with mixed results. The best I've heard so far, which partly captures the effect is the Type IV TSR on my dBx Quantum rack unit. It actually gets pretty close, or maybe I've just forgotten what a 2" 24 track sounds like after all these years.

 

Digital definitely takes a more accurate picture of what's put in, with a wider dynamic range and flatter frequency response - and that continues to improve with 96k, 24 bit, etc. over the original CD quality audio. The deeper bit depth is very useful both in my work measurements and musically, since you don't have to worry so much about levels and you can afford to wait to compress until after tracking, if you want.

 

I was pretty horrified when I first switched from tape to binary. Turns out a big part of what I thought was "my signature sound" actually came from my old tape machine. Mixers have a sound, too, and "upgrading" from an old analog board can bring some surprises as well.

 

But really it just requires a different way of working, and digital brings so many other advantages to the table I would never go back, though I guess I would purchase and refurbish an old tape machine if my customers would support it. I do still remember all the pain in the ass maintenance I had to do on the tape machines, and how they'd occasionally screw up right in the middle of an important session. But I know tape and tape machines really well, and I'm handy with a blade, so who knows - maybe someday. Probably not.

 

I really, really like automation. Worth its weight in gold. I'm old enough to remember the "final mix" (if there ever is a final mix) with three or four people all hands on the console, hoping everyone would remember their cues to hit the mute buttons, raise a fader 3dB, etc. What a pain in the ass! Now, not only do you only have to get part of the mix right and then let the console remember that for you while you move on to other groups, but you can also be right back where you were on last week's project with a couple of button presses.

 

Of course you can do that with analog tape too, if you stripe a track with SMPTE.

 

Another reason I prefer digital is the fact a digital copy can actually be better than the original.

 

How, you say? Well you know that copying analog tape always reduces the quality a little, even with the best maintained machines. But, if you don't wait too long, a copy of a digital tape has all the same bits but now the media is fresh and new. Of course this isn't much of a consideration with hard disks or DVD backups, at least not to any appreciable degree. So digital is forever, if you're careful and you always keep at least one old machine that can read your oldest storage media.

 

You ever put an analog tape up, only to have it gradually slow down and stop the machine, then open the head stack cover to find a big pile of goo? Man, I have. Baking tapes used to suck. I hope we never have to bake our DVDs and CDRs.

 

I would say now that we have 96k 24 bit digital (and maybe even before that), digital is better in every way. And I can tell that most people agree with me, because I see what people are buying and what's in use at just about every studio I visit. It's easy to forget the bad things about tape, like the high noise levels (requiring Dolby A or dBx on multitracks), the reliablility factor, the constant maintenance, the cost of tape, the endless cutting and splicing, etc., and just remember the holy grail of analog tape sound as an effect on drums and vocals recorded hot.

 

A friend recently finished a project he paid extra $$$ to record on analog tape. He brought it over to my control room to listen to it in (another) good acoustic environment, and to get my opinion. It was cut on 1" tape, with dBx I think. It's a good sounding album, but man, the engineer really didn't use the tape characteristics at all. It was clean and crisp, but it might as well have been recorded into Cool Edit or N-Tracks or any other multitrack recording software.

 

So to some extent, tape's like NOS tubes, germanium transistors, old Electro Harmonix gear, beat up fender combo amps, etc. Meaning there's something there, maybe, but there's a big hype factor as well.

 

Take this for whatever you think it's worth.

 

Terry D.

[Lee Flier]

Skunky,

 

I've been an engineer for 25 years and thus came up in the analog world, but have used both analog and digital extensively since then.

 

I think the reasons people switch to digital are pretty compelling: it's affordable (mainly in terms of maintenance costs), non linear editing rocks, total session recall rocks, having lots of plugins available as opposed to having to use mountains of outboard gear is great, recording rigs have become easily portable to different cool locations, there's no generation loss on duplication, and at least on paper the specs are better (in terms of dynamic range, SNR, distortion etc.)

 

All of that stuff is great and I use digital a lot myself for all of those reaons.

 

ON THE OTHER HAND...

 

- High end digital is really no more affordable than high end analog.

- Although maintenance of digital equipment is more affordable if something actually goes wrong with your gear, routine maintenance is just as time consuming as analog, when you factor in defragging, backups etc.

- Having non linear editing, lots of plugins etc. gives both musicians and engineers too many opportunities to be lazy, not turn in a very good performance because they know it can be "fixed in the mix," overuse plugins and editing to the point where it's painful and/or sucks the life out of the music... etc. Sure, you don't HAVE to do any of these things, but it's awfully tempting, and has unfortunately become a standard.

 

AND MOST OF ALL...

 

... at the end of the day I still prefer the sound of analog, and will use it whenever I have the opportunity. Yeah, it's a PITA in some ways compared to digital, but if you have a nice automated console it's not that much of a PITA, and if you have musicians that know how to play it's not a big deal. I find that it takes much less time to get a good sounding mix with analog anyway... analog gear having been mature as long as it has, it's just more "musically friendly" right out of the box, whereas digital gear usually has to be wrestled into submission to get the desired sound, at least for rock and pop which is mostly what I record. For quieter stuff digital is fine.

 

In any case I don't think it's ever good to sacrifice quality for convenience, so I don't mind jumping through a few extra hoops to use tape cuz when it gets down to it, I still like the quality better. Just like I'll still lug a tube guitar amp around even though a modeller like a POD is more convenient and versatile. It's not so much that there's anything "wrong" with the sound of digital so much as there's something "right" about analog that digital just ain't got yet, IMO. It might someday, but in the meantime... gimmie tape whenever possible. Oh yeah, and the smell of a newly opened box of tape, and the sound of tape rewinding in the cans are extra bonuses.

 

And P.S. I'm not Bruce.

[Bruce Swedien]

skunky_funk sez--------->For once, I wanna hear expert opinion from someone like Bruce Swedien regarding the DIGITAL vs. ANALOG debates.

 

Bruce Swedien sez--------->All I can say is..... Well - I love my Pro-Tools! However - Every now and then I really miss my Studer A827! And I mean REALLY!!!

 

I'm often asked this question - "What Is It going to be like? Recording Music In The New Millenium?"

 

Well, that

[John Sayers]

hey - now steady on Grandpa I'm old but you are vintage

 

cheers

john

[steadyb]

 

Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe I'm not Bruce, but

 

 

You play one on TV???

 

 

Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe ...one of the things I really miss the most about the analog days was the tendency of people - musicians - to "get it right" to begin with while tracking. There was less of the "fix it in the editing / mix stage" attitude.

 

 

That's the biggest reason of all.

 

Singers had to actually be able to sing, players had to actually be able to play.

[John Sayers]

One of our aussie classic albums was Daddy Cool's first album recorded in 68 - day one - bed tracks - day two overdubs and vocals - day 3 mix. Actually the tapes were taken to the states for mixing. It was only 8 track then and I remember hearing the mixes for the first time and saying "how in the f**k did they do that!!"

 

cheers

john

[Bruce Swedien]

steadyb sez--------->Singers had to actually be able to sing, players had to actually be able to play.

 

Brucie sez--------->What a novel approach!!!! I hope it catches on!

 

Brucie the Viking!!!!

[skunky_funk]

 

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien skunky_funk sez--------->For once, I wanna hear expert opinion from someone like Bruce Swedien regarding the DIGITAL vs. ANALOG debates.   Bruce Swedien sez--------->All I can say is..... Well - I love my Pro-Tools! However - Every now and then I really miss my Studer A827! And I mean REALLY!!!   I'm often asked this question - "What Is It going to be like? Recording Music In The New Millenium?"   Well, that

[Phil O'Keefe]

Skunky, something is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it... no more, no less.

 

However, there's ranges of "worth" to people. The average person may only be willing to pay $4,000 for a certain item, but someone who owned that EXACT machine (or one just like it) and has a strong emotional / sentimental attachment to it, and a lot of money to burn might be willing to pay significantly more...

 

If your MTR 90 is useful to you, who cares what the market value of it is? Use it in good health, and enjoy! If you're buying it as an "investment", then you might have to take other factors into account, and you'll need Brucie's digital crystal ball... But if you just want it for your own use, IMO, as long as you paid a price that you think was fair and you like the machine, go with it and don't worry about what it's worth.

[Phil O'Keefe]

BTW, I don't think that analog decks are going anywhere for at least the next decade. That's conjecture on my part, but OTOH, there's still a lot of working decks out there, a lot of dedicated analog fans who record, and tape supply issues seem to have worked themselves out. Parts may get harder and harder to find, but there are always machine shops and specialty companies who are able and willing to provide parts and service.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien steadyb sez--------->Singers had to actually be able to sing, players had to actually be able to play. Brucie sez--------->What a novel approach!!!! I hope it catches on! Brucie the Viking!!!!

 

Amen Brothers!!!

[Anderton]

It's important to emphasize that digital audio is in its infancy. If you compare the sound of a CD player from 1985 with one from 2005, there have obviously been HUGE improvements. I remember the first time I heard the PARIS system and was amazed at how much better it sounded...the guys at Ensoniq said it was mostly due to minimizing jitter and how they did the circuit board layout (and it used -- wow -- 20 bit converters! Way ahead of 16 bits).

 

I think the Direct Stream Digital process sounds very close to analog in terms of sounding very smooth, although of course it doesn't offer the saturation/overload characteristics.

 

Speaking of which, a lot of people don't realize that tape can distort audibly at low levels, like starting at -15dB. You don't have to be in the red for tape to add some of that magic distortion effect.

[Light em Up]

Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe I'm not Bruce, but I've been at this long enough (over two decades ) that I've worked with both - a lot. IMO, each has advantages and disadvantages. .

 

Phil. Do you use a Cranesong Hedd or anything like that? If so..could you ..or anyone, post some soundclips of its effect on a mix. I would love to hear one used by someone who knows what they are diong

[Phil O'Keefe]

Phil. Do you use a Cranesong Hedd or anything like that? If so..could you ..or anyone, post some soundclips of its effect on a mix. I would love to hear one used by someone who knows what they are doing

 

I wish.

 

Dave Hill is a genius IMO. He's demo'ed the HEDD for me at a couple of trade shows, and it's quite impressive. He's also the man behind one of my favorite compressors / leveling amps of all time - the Summit TLA100. Good stuff...

 

Sorry I don't have any clips for you.