Digital vs. Analogue recordings: which are best?

[Marco]

MPG event 2005 comparison with analogue and digital recordings: Music Producers Guild Event June 2005- video feature.

The MPG held an event at London's British Grove Studios to compare analogue with digital recording. Three digital contenders battled against the heavyweight 16 track 2 inch Studer A800. Watch this video feature.

http://www.recordproduction.com/mpg-...05-video1.html

Guys,

Please watch the above video and then offer you opinion on the outcome, together with your views on the subject, stating your preference if you have one.

My own view is that I would love to have been at the event and heard the results for myself, as it would have been a useful and educational exercise. However based on the feedback from those present I don't think the results are conclusive that digital is better.

Yes, RADAR seemed a popular choice because it was "clean" and "punchy", and was without doubt the favoured digital recording process of the test, with Nuendo next and Pro Tools last.

However quite a few of the guys favoured results on the A800, and considered the sound "richer", "wider" and more "complete", which is what I would expect from analogue, but it's interesting that high quality results can be obtained by RADAR. I wonder how widely is this process used in modern commercial recordings compared to for example Pro Tools or Nuendo?

The chap at the end summing things up was certainly impressed by RADAR but I got the distinct impression that for him the jury was still out, as he normally uses analogue as his "weapon of choice", although he did state that results vary wildly depending on what tape and machines are used. It seemed that the results with analogue in the test that day didn't match the high standards he was used to getting, so perhaps something was amiss...

What was interesting for me though was the guy who said that at first he really liked RADAR because it was so "punchy" but the more he listened to it the more he went off it. Could it be that RADAR, like many things digital, makes music sound superficially 'impressive' but unnatural sounding with long term listening? If so, then it's what I would have suspected based on my experience of listening to and making analogue and digital recordings myself.

I think the key word which was used to describe analogue recordings was "complete", and "incomplete" was used for the likes of Pro Tools, but not RADAR. The former is how I always view analogue recordings because when listening to them your brain doesn't have to fill in the gaps missing from digital, and so listening 'fatigue factor' is less, if indeed any is experienced at all with analogue.

It was an interesting video, and although intriguing, it certainly hasn't left me with the impression that modern digital recording techniques are undoubtedly superior to tried and tested analogue methods.

What does everyone else think?

Marco.

[Filterlab]

Great video mate, nice find.

Without actually being there I couldn't say which I'd prefer, however what this test proves is this:

In this instance and this instance only, most of the guys there prefered the sound of the Radar digital systems recording over the Studer A800 recording. That's to say that most of them liked that recording, but it doesn't necessarily mean they prefer analogue over digital or vice versa, or in fact necessarily prefer either recording system over the other. It's simply only that recording, on that day, in that environment. And even then not all of them liked the same thing.

As I've said before I personally prefer digital sound reproduction (on the whole) but I think neither one is better than the other, it's just more suitable either way for certain types of music, musical instruments, environments, equipment and people. It all depends on the person listening at the end of the chain.

I have about 1500 CDs and no other replay media, and although I don't play them on a CD player the music I hear is most definitely stored in a digital medium. However despite how it's stored and re-played in my lounge, a vast percentage of those recordings were analogue recordings in the first place; Dire Straits, Fleetwood Mac, Supertramp, Alan Parsons Project, David Bowie, The Police etc etc all recorded before (on the whole) the advent of purely digital studios, and they all sound absolutely amazing!

Whether analogue or digital, it's the studio engineers who make a recording good - the recording system is just a tool. To level out a context, I'd be prepared to bet that if I was in a waxed canoe using the finest oars, wearing the lightest clothing and floating on calm water, Steve Redgrave would still be able to row a knackered old rowing boat along faster than I could go. Talent over tools.

[Marco]

Great video mate, nice find.

Ashley sent it to me (apparently) to prove that digital recording methods are definitely better. Yes, quite...

Marco.

[Marco]

Come on, has no-one else got an opinion on this?

Marco.

[Filterlab]

Ashley sent it to me (apparently) to prove that digital recording methods are definitely better. Yes, quite...

Marco.

LOL! "Prove", yeah right. Maybe you should send him my post - or the section that's relevant anyway.

[snapper]

Come on, has no-one else got an opinion on this?

Marco.

Yeah.

The person that sent it to you must be an asshole if they think this is proof of one recording format to be superior to another.

[Filterlab]

The person that sent it to you must be an asshole if they think this is proof of one recording format to be superior to another.

Funny you should say.

[Mike]

Come on, has no-one else got an opinion on this?

Marco.

Well yes, seeing as you ask.

I was distracted to the point that I burned my pork chops!

[DSJR]

Yeah.

The person that sent it to you must be an asshole if they think this is proof of one recording format to be superior to another.

Now, how can someone with one of the very BEST EVER "EM" records as his avatar be so closed minded HMMM? TD fans are such a pleasant and open minded lot too.............Shame on you sir!

Top notch analogue recordings with 15 IPS Dolby SR apparently sound very impressive indeed, far better again than the largely grotty performance we use to get from the average Revox used at home. However there are very many variables to consider, such as the state of the tape machine and the quality and age of the tapes used on it, which was acknowledged in the article (which I sent to Ashley by the way) how different batches of tape differ.

Tapes recorded years ago can go off, moisture can affect the adhesion of oxide to backing and as far as I know, most Ampex masters from the seventies are now unplayable, having to be baked/dried in an oven before being played ONCE ONLY to take a digital safety copy! OK, I appreciate that there are thousands of masters from the fifties that have survived reasonably well, but a mastering engineer friend told me it was a race against time to digitise them all before some became unplayable through age.

Finally, it may surprise some of you to know that most Studer style tape machines used to play back the analogue masters when creating digital pre-masters have fairly limited HF response, depending on the age and wear of the heads, sometimes not much more than the lower 20KHz region. The tapes themselves will apparently lose a little too with time. The highest frequency I understand used when setting up the playback machines is 15KHz I understand (at least it was with the copy masters I played and the tapes I saw and heard at Decca when they were at Belsize Road)...

The article was talking about recordings and first, I found it great to hear an un-processed drum kit at the beginning, as most kits on a typical mix have the life throttled out of them. Obviously, the download link won't be of the highest fidelity anyway and as none of us were there (?) it's more difficult to hear what the monitors were reproducing, as the sound feed on the link seemed to come from a mic or two in the control room, rather than from the desk. I have to trust the opinion of the experts who were present and I understand the conclusion was that analogue recording quality on the Studer could be much better than they had that day and that the Radar system was the best of the digital systems (when "everyone" uses pro-tools......).

P.S. I can't remember if Howard sold Linn's products in the late seventies/early eighties but at the time, they did an "Analogue/Digital" LP with the same music "take" done with the studio analogue tape system and a Sony betamax digital recorder (PCM F1?) and didn't tell anyone which side was which. Everyone I spoke to preferred what turned out to be the digital side (confirmed by discussions with the Linn guys and sales ladies).

Nothing wrong with either format if you ask me, it's HOW each format is used that's important....

[John]

Cheers fo the video link, suggests that RADAR is the better medium to record on and that analogue as a recording tool can either be magical or disappointing depending on the machine and tape. Just goes to show the amount pf effort a good producer outs into creating a good sound.
I am sure digital as musical medium can still improve, its more of a science and therefore eaiser to control but i am not sound engineer so maybe wrong