People may ask me why I am such an advocate of analogue technology. After all, almost all people operating mid-sized studios such as mine are switchingto computer based Digital Audio Workstations (DAW) for all of their production. Actually, this is part of my reasoningbehind it. If there are twelve studiosin my area using Pro Tools, is it really wise for ME to offer exactly what youcan get anywhere else? Now, some peoplewho know me may say I'm stuck in the past or just "inexperienced"with DAWs. This is a far cry from thetruth. A little history is appropriatehere. I started getting into recordingin 1995 to create a musical sketchpad for my band at the time. Using an almost non-existant budget, Iexperimented and researched every related technology available. The first recordings I did were on a TascamPorta-01, a 4-track cassette machine with a low quality built-in mixer. This suited my needs as a musical sketchpad(to get the band's idea recorded for further development). By 1997, I had outgrown the abilities of thesmall cassette format and traded the deck for a Behringer Autocom which I stillhave today (though rarely use I admit). In 1998, I was using a full-blown DAW and was being hired by other bandsto record them on location or in my home studio. My first non-linear video productions were done on the samecomputer, very tricky when you only have 6GB of storage. This was also my introduction to mastering. Though I knew what it was, I had never doneit myself before this time. I continuedrecording on this system throughout the year 2000 and found myself increasinglyfrustraited with the limitation and low sound quality of the DAW. I was also increasingly frustraited withconstantly having to upgrade as well as backing up files. Not to mention the glitches that wouldhappen randomly in this system.

I completely rebuilt the computerwith the best technology available to me (and I was one of the first peoplelocally who had 24bit 96KHz capability). I tried every software I could find. Overwhealmed by the difficulty of simple things like changing therouting of a particular channel, I started relying more and more on externalprocessors, mixers and patching hand written algorithms into my softwares. I broke down and bought a Teac 80-8 whichwas a 1/2" 8-track with DBX noise reduction. People kept telling me switching to analogue was a mistake. I was supposed to be swamped with all thismaintainance I had to do and it would be noisy. Well, I spent a few minutes cleaning the machine before eachsession and it worked flawlessly every time. Every once and a while I had to degauss it and check the alignment. It sure was a lot less work than keeping thecomputer glitch free and backing up files all the time. As far as noise goes, I didn't even have thenoise reduction connected most of the time and nobody ever complained of noiseproblems. When I DID use the noisereduction, the tape typically had an 90dB or better signal to noise ratio whichwas less noisy than the first 16-bit convertors I had (about 76dB).

I continued running both DAW and1/2" together until one fatefull day in 2003 when I was recording a bandthat had brought me a lot of business. In the middle of some vocal overdubs, my computer crashed and lost theirentire project. I lost those clientsfor good after a 2-year relationship. Iswore I'd never record a band on computer again, so I upgraded from a 2002 DAWto a 1980 1" 16-track. Strangely,my record/mix times were cut by about 30% and people seemed endlessly moreimpressed with my work. Not that theanalogue recording in of itself sounds that much different. Instead ofstruggling with the horrid digital signal processing of the DAW or labeling files so theydon't get misinterpereted, I could concentrate on engineering. I no longer have to back up files or waitfor the computer to save takes. I hit"stop" at the end of a take, take the reel off the hub and put it ona shelf where I know it won't get deleted accidentally. I can change the reverb setting with the single push of a button. I can completely change a mix in a matter of seconds instead of using a mouse to go through menues, dragging virtual sliders and manually entering numerical values into tables. On top of that, I am now one of the only two mid to large studios in my area that even has the ABILITY to record in analogue. This hasbrought me a lot of business because there's a lot of people out there whodon't like the sound of DAWs. If youdon't believe me, read almost any magazine about recording. There's hardly any professional engineers ofnew or old that likes the sound of digital over analogue. But most people continue to use digitalbecause it makes editing easier. But nowinstead of redoing a bad take in ten minutes, they’re now spending an extra hourchopping it up to make a "correct" but very artificial soundingtake. Whether you notice it conciouslyor not, psych studies show that edited tracks create a sensation of stressbecause they do not sound natural to the ear. Now, a list of facts that make me more comfortable with my already existing choice.

All this means that you haveto constantly copy and convert to the latest format in order for it to last.

On this note, in blind listening tests, analogue and digitalrecordings have been made of the same musical performances using the samesignal path. It is always almost unanimous that the analogue source is superior. I performed a blind test myself in college, year 1999, using arecording of a band using 16-bit 44.1KHz digital, FM tape and vinyl. Myresults showed that most people had no preferece but those who did have apreference said the FM source was the best. It has been argued that people favored the analogue recordings over digital because the flaws of analogue technology covered up the inherent flaws in the source material. Imagine a car with a few minor scratches in the paint. If you were to take sand paper to the car, would that make it look better or worse? The same applies to audio. Almost all audio starts in the analogue domain and all audio ends in the analogue domain. To convert an analogue signal to digital and back to analogue once again is a very artificial process. Therefore one can determine that the common subconcious preference for analogue recordings states that digital recording is in fact the more flawd of the media. Psychological studies actually show that recordings played back from digital sources create brain patterns similar to frustraition (I was a psych majorafter all). The same is true ofrecordings made from class AB amplifiers but this is another subject. Subjects who listened to playbacks fromanalogue sources showed brain patterns similar to joy. While some claim digital is the clearer format, I firmly believe that it is a false sense of clarity cause by the distortions which occur primarily in the upper register of the digital domain. There is an effects processor called the Aphex Aurel Exciter. The Aurel Exciter is a processor which creates a compressed signal with distortion localized to the upper register of the audio spectrum. This distorted signal is then combined with the original dry undistorted audio signal. The result is the perception of increased clarity because of the artificial introduction of false overtones. Digital sampling generates alias harmonic and subharmonic frequencies within the range of audio where human hearing is most sensitive. That range is the same part of the spectrum the Aurel Exciter manipulates and thus a similar outcome results. This will be explained further in the follow up article listed at the bottom.

In this day of constantly changingformats (with CD on the decline and DVD-audio & DSD comming up), analoguetape can readily take advantage of the newer formats by simply copying from the original to the new format. If you recorded on a 2 inch 16-track and mixed to 1/2 inch tape, you can master it for CD and it'll be fine for now. Comming from the common 44.1KHz CD master over to say DSD, you're stuck with 44.1KHz sound on a medium that takes up much more storage space. If you go back to the 1/2 inch mix tape and remaster for DSD, your new master can instantly take advantage of the new format in all its splendor. When you record digitally at 44.1KHz and remaster for DSD, all the extra resolution of the new format is thrown away. It will sound the same on DSD as the original CD print did. Analogue has theoretically limitless resolution so when you remaster your 4 year old album, you can take advantage of the full resolution of the new medium. The problem, however, is that even though good analogue is WAY betterthan good digital, cheap digital sounds cleaner for cheaper than cheapanalogue. Consequently, most people in the home studio or mid studio level will never be able to hear how good analogue cansound. Now, DSD, which means"delta-sigma digital" AKA "direct steam digital" AKA “deltaslope digital” or as I call it, "decent sounding digital" is atechnology I have researched and shows a LOT of promise for the future. DSD is not your traditional digital signal. It's actually the first two steps of thedigital conversion process without the remaining filtering and combiningalgorithms. The result is a 1 bitrecording at aproximately 2.8224MHz. Thereare a few problems with this signal but it is by far the best digital has everbeen. The biggest problem isstorage. At the time of writting thisessay, there are a few DSD mixing boards out there, there are no multitracks,only stereo DSD recorders. It will be along time before a reliable multitrack hits the market and it won't be cheap.

Furthermore I support analogueprocessing whenever possible. In all mytime with DAWs and digital mixing, I have yet to hear a digital EQ that isacceptible. I'm very picky about EQs sothere aren't many analogue EQs I like either but at least there's a few. But you have to understand that a digital processor uses delay to createcancellation & reinforcement of frequency instead of electronic resonancelike analogue EQ does. Digital EQ is like trying to move walls and baffels in a studio to change the frequency responcewithout changing the ambience. It'sjust not possible. Yes you can changethe frequency response that way but it will also severely harm the ambience anddetail of the recording. Nice soundingdigital compressors are also very hard to get but I have a couple of pluginsthat are acceptible. Another thing tonote is that other studios who run DAWs have commented that they have a hardtime getting clean sound when mixing digitally especially when using a largenumber of tracks. This is because everytime you double the number of tracks, you have to reduce the volume of eachtrack by about 6dB in order to prevent clipping. This is the sonic equivelant to removing a bit off yourword-length every time you double the tracks. Let's say you have a 24-bit DAW. When you have one track running, it can be at its full 24-bit potential. When you add a second track, you have to cutthe volume giving roughly a 23-bit per channel resolution. When you get sixteen tracks going, you havemore like 19-bit resolution. Now thismay sound like plenty but remember that those 5 bits you lost through bussmixing cut your resolution down to 1/16th of the original 24-bit sound. Also bear in mind that when you added EQ toyour signal, you had thousands of delayed signals mixed back into the linewhich already reduced the output resolution. I've heard of people who own DAWs sending single channels or pairs ofchannels through outboard passive summing busses and being much happier with theresult than mixing purely in the digital domain.

When you mix in the analoguedomain, adding more tracks means more loss through the summing network and thusrequires more make up gain, which adds noise. There is, however, no noticable effect on overall sound quality orclarity and the added noise is usually below the already existing noise levelof the recording. On another note, haveyou noticed the craze over vacuume tube gear lately? It is by no coincidence this fad started when DAW’s startedtaking over the industry. People arenoticing how edgy, hollow & steryl their DAW recordings are so they thinkthat using tube preamps or fake tube line amps available from dozens ofmanufacterers now will “warm up” the cold digital world. I put it to the test and got a 2 channelmic/line tube amp and did some comparisons. What I heard was not nice, natural, “warm “audio but cold digital audiowith distortion added. Now the craze isgoing toward software plugin simlulations of tube and tape devices because people are using hardware less and less. These are a far cry from the realthing. I’ve seen so many plugins thatare supposed to make digital sound like analogue. I demoed some of these. Listen guys, it won’t make your DAW recordings sound like they wererecorded and mixed from a Studer A827. If the “Studer A827 with 996 tape” plugin did its job perfectly, it would still sound like arecording done on a DAW, bounced to a tape machine and bounced back to theDAW. With all this tube gear andplugins people are collecting, wouldn’t it be better and cheaper to record on analogue fromthe beginning instead of trying to simulate it?

If you or your musicianship is really sobad you can’t record an album without editing the crap out of it on a DAW, you probably shouldn’t be in the business from the beginning. But let’s say you’re determined to have an album and need the DAWbut want an analogesque sound. You cantrack your band in your home studio and take it elsewhere to be mixed through areal board down to ¼” tape. This is avery common practice. It works. I myself hate editing on DAWs or on anythingelse for that matter. With tape, peopledon’t expect me to be able to turn their mush into a performance for them. Editing is a tedious process and sounds at least at a subconcious level, unnatural. While even though I can edit tape, I like to avoid it. It is something I do once and a while though.

I also in a way feel that digitalis not in the true sense, recording. Let’s say you map a grid on top of a fine painting and write down thecolor that shows in each square of the grid. Later, you take your notes and make another grid of the samedimentions. Then you use yourinformation about the colors as they applied to the original to create a newpainting. It looks quite a bit like theoriginal, especially when you’re further away, but it’s not the same painting,just a recreation. This is in a sensewhat digital “recording” is. Takingmeasurements of a sound, assigning a discreet numerical value to each measurementand using those values to create a new sound. What you’re hearing is a computer generated simulation. Analogue processes use a chain reaction ofmolecules and subatomic particles to store the patern of sound on amedium. The medium in one way oranother induces a chain reaction of particles in motion to reproduce thesound. So in that sense, analoguerecording is more like taking a photograph while digital is more like writingdown measurements and drawing the same scene over again based on saidmeasurements. Neither are the originalbut analogue is a more direct representation of the original scene. After all my reasoning, I just like analoguebetter. It’s not that I refuse to workon material of digital sources, I just prefer to use analogue in my own studio.

For further reading on this subject, go to the Recording Technology Analysis article.

If you do not understand terminology in this site, go hereEncyclopedia

To E-mail the author, type what you see in the image below into another window. Sorry for the inconvinience.

Main Index