Digital vs. Analog. I've tried very hard but I just can't get that sound.

[d-dmusic]

Just recently a friend of mine brought over an old mix that we did a few years ago on an analog recorder/console and it blew my mind. It was phat !
BIG ! WIIIDE ! and ya' know everything fit nicely! There was room for everything in that mix even though the individual components were big and beefy. The guitars just sounded amazing. Talk about paint stripper ! It was mastered to DAT but there IS a difference depending on your SOURCE.

Here I am struggling for years and thinking I'm doin' all right with my digital system but sh#$%^t it was a revealation. My digital system just doesn't have THAT sound. I twiddle and tweak and tweak and twiddle far more than we ever did on the analog system but the end result just isn't there.
There are incredible benefits to having a non-linear system but I can say that, with my system, sound is not one of them. Mine is close but.....

Who's got a computer based DAW/system out there that they can honestly say is as good as analog ? Please tell me what it is !

[clintonwstuart]

I don't think there is anything in the world which compares to analog audio. Unfortunatly it is so damn expensive. For $150 you can buy a reel of 2' 24-track analog tape which only gives you about 16:40 of recording time. For the same price, you can buy a 30 gig harddrive and have just under 2 hours of 24tracks of 24bit, 48khz audio. Not to mention the fact that you can reuse the space after you burn a data cdr. I love analog but I can't personally afford it. Thatis why I got into professional audio, other people will pay for the tape and upkeep of the machines. And I can enjoy the quality.

[Nika]

How many tracks are you trying to do?

The answer can be potentially long depending on what you're trying to do.


Thanx!
Nika.

[David Klausner]

There are two main things to consider when comparing digital with analog. The first is what kind of artifacts you are generating in the digital world that are not present in analog (largely during A/D conversion, but also in other processes), and the second is what artifacts are you not hearing in the digital world that you used to hear in analog?

These days, there are some excellent sounding converters available, and while the converters built into many popular interfaces are great, you can usually get a better, more natural, more artifact free result with good quality dedicated converters, such as those from Apogee. If you're really looking to get that last bit of quality out of your system, such an upgrade may be something to consider.

A lot of early digital recordings sounded pretty bad, not only because converters were not nearly as good as they are now, but also because engineers used the same techniques they had used for 50 years with analog systems. The harder you hit analog tape, for example, the more compression (with a very definite character) you generate. In the analog world, you really had to get your sound, record it to tape, and then play it back, to hear what it was going to sound like after tape compression (and HF rolloff, etc.). The same techniques that worked to take advantage of that coloration can sound harsh or brittle when used with even a good sounding digital system - understanding that, and compensating your technique for it can help you get better recordings in the digital world.

Having said that, there are times when the sort of artifacts analog tape can produce can be a very useful color. That's one of the reasons for the rise in popularity of certain tube front end devices - the tube saturation can help add a similar sort of harmonic content and compression.

While there is nothing yet in the digital world that completely mimics the character of analog tape (although the McDSP Analog Channel plug-in for ProTools comes pretty close!), there are certainly things that can be done to make digital sound more natural and full. What exactly is the system you are using, and what sort of music are you doing? Perhaps with a little more information we will be able to make some more concrete suggestions.

[d-dmusic]

Hi Nika and David :
I'm not really trying to "mimic" analog. About the only thing in the signal path that does that is the "TrueTape" feature in VST32. I'm just trying to get the best sounding mixes that I can with the digital system I have. That system is :

DAW:
Mac G3/233/2X500 Mhz, xlr8, upgrade.OS9.1
2XSeagate 9gig Barracuda Drives on an Adaptec 2940UW SCSI card.
CubaseVST32/5.0r2
Yamaha DSPF Card adbdigital ax88 24bit AD/DA audio interface.

Front End:
Mackie 1604VLZ
Neumann TLM103, Shure 57's, Sennheiser 421's

Processing :
Waves Native Gold Bundle
TC Native Reverb (Don't use it much)
Antares Auto-Tune
Lexicon MPX-1
2XLexicon MPX100's

Lots o' MIDI/VSTi's.

I do a wide variety of stuff from commercials to audio CD's for rock, new country, east/west indian music, etc.. Each style requires a different touch when it comes to mixing. My system seems to have it's achilles heel in the rock stuff. BIG sounding, dense, rock productions. I've noticed (and I really should be more careful with this)that the DSPF really starts to sound brittle above -5dbfs. Anything above that and you start to get THAT brittle/digital sound but below that the resolution is compromised a little. Not much but.....again it's that fine line between great sounding mixes and O.K. sounding mixes and maybe resolution is really the key. Maybe there is something to that 96kHz(or better the 88.2kHz) stuff after all.
I don't know. Maybe I'm just being overly fussy but I have a chance coming up soon to overhaul my system by getting rid of the ol' and buying some new but maybe digital just ain't there yet. Maybe I'll wait.
Oh yeah, how many tracks ? It really varies. With commercial stuff I can eat up tons o' tracks with multiple versions of the same spot. 60's, 30's 15'sec arrangements with 4 part harmonies on some spots/doubled, gtr's/doubled, voice over takes etc... 50+ tracks is not unusual.
So, yes Nika, I do have a need for alot of tracks.

[David Klausner]

It seems to me that there are several places where an improvement can be made in your system, but the obvious weak link looks like the DSP Factory. That's a 20 bit interface from a few years ago. While it had a number of cool features, it wasn't known for stellar quality converters, which are certainly one of the most important elements in getting a good digital sound. You have noticed the brittle sound above -5dB - a good digital system should actually sound better as you get closer to 0 dB, as the resolution increases. The distortion points to a flaw in the analog part of the converter circuitry, which itself is a critical part of the converter's sound. My advice is to not give up on digital (especially if you need 50+ tracks!) and improve your interface. And don't worry about 96KHz stuff - that's not where the problem is.

[shaneperc]

Yep, analog is still the cats meow. There are very good sounding DAWs, but that said, there isn't a major recording studio out there that doesn't track to a Studer first. (Except the ones that track to an Otari :)
I'm really interested to see where the new higher resolution digital audio will take things. Digital, though not very close right now, closes in on analog with every step. (I've heard several interesting reports about recording at 192khz.) If digital audio keeps the same developmental pace as it has in the past 5 years, maybe we will be closing in sometime soon. (Which is good, because I don't have the 15 years to learn the fine art of 2" tape!)

[alphajerk]

digital isnt "cheap" either. as much as i dislike chris lord alge, he made some comments about it in the new mix. "analog is like the windows in a low rider... they are tinted and you cant quite make out exactly whats on the other side. digital is like transparent glass and you see everything" [or something like that] which i do happne to agree with [how he never touches parameters on the outboard gear he has normalled to his board is beyond me]

anyways. keep working at your sound. it takes a LOT longer to master digital than analog. analog is easy to get a good sound with even the cheapest equipment, digital makes you work for it. when you nail it, it sounds great.

[shaneperc]

I vote we all go out and get Sony 3384s and Prism converters. (Does anyone have $200,000 I can borrow?)

[d-dmusic]

alphajerk :
Ya, no kidding digital takes a long time. By the time I scroll here, click on this, scroll over there, click on that and repeat these moves hundreds of times in a mix, phew, hours and hours go by. I've programmed alot of my own short cuts/key commands as well but mixing in a DAW takes time.

The thing that I notice the most (lately) about mixes on my DAW is the lack of openness. Everything seems to be "cramped" in there-almost as if there isn't enough sonic real estate for everything to reside properly in there. And I'm starting to notice other mixes (commercial CD's) that have a similar cramped quality. Of course, I don't know whether these CD's have been tracked/mixed digitally or overly compressed/limited later in mastering, or both, but it is "noticeable."

[David Klausner]

Without knowing what CD's you are listening to I can't be sure, but most CD's destined for the radio these days are extremely over compressed. Take a CD and load it into your DAW and have a look at the waveform - most of them will be extremely chopped off.

I wonder if some of the "cramped" sound you are hearing is actually a result of the hours and hours of editing you're doing. Once you have the capability to make your mixes "perfect" there is a big tendency to think that you have to, often losing sight of the spirit of the music. I used to work with a guy (with a number of major albums to his credit) who never used console automation. We would get the assistants in there (and once even the receptionist) to move every fader and knob in real time. He felt that he was capturing performances in his recordings, and that the mix should be a performance as well. If he went back and tweaked the automation, it lost some life. I'm not nearly that extreme, but those experiences did teach me a lesson.

[Nika]

Originally posted by d-dmusic
Ya, no kidding digital takes a long time. By the time I scroll here, click on this, scroll over there, click on that and repeat these moves hundreds of times in a mix, phew, hours and hours go by. I've programmed alot of my own short cuts/key commands as well but mixing in a DAW takes time.


David,

Yes, but a fully automated analog system would cost? $xxx,xxx??

And your system cost? $x,xxx??

I'll bet that if you spent $xxx,xxx on your digital system it wouldn't be nearly as inconvenient to mix. I think that a digital console that costs what an analog one does is pretty snazzy to mix on.

And it sure is convenient to be able to set up shortcuts/key commands, because I don't care WHAT the analog console costs, I've yet to see quickeys built into it!

When comparing apples to apples I don't think digital takes longer in the way you describe.

Just passing thoughts,
Nika.

[alphajerk]

also be aware, limited number of elements has much more space than a lot of elements. even on great recordings [had a small listening party tonight] even analog will "fold down" considerably when lots of action started happening. thr most "open" tracks i have even done were 2 track acoustic/vox tracks.

it doesnt mean less is more, more is still more, but the more **** you got in there the more crowded it gets.

[d-dmusic]

Hi Nika :
You must be talking about DAW systems with a control surface(s). I have not yet had the experience mixing with one of those yet. That could speed up the process considerably and would start to compare with the instant accessability of analog consoles.

But speed is not my problem. I really don't mind spending the time. In fact, mostly, I like it.

I guess it could be time to upgrade to a new sound card/AD/DA. But what ? I want to stay with Cubase now that I've work with it for so long. I need 8ins/outs and SDIF in/out as a bare minimum but I'd like it to sound a whole lot better if I'm going to go through the hassle and expense.
Suggestions ? or just wait and see. I'm not in a hurry.:D

[Nika]

David,

Yes, I'm speaking about either systems that have a control surface, or of systems that aren't DAW's, but are rather a mixer with a digital recorder/editor such as a Digital8Bus and an HDR24/96 on the inexpensive end.

Nika.

[shaneperc]

DMusic,
I know you've said you want to stick with Cubase, but have you tried different recording software on your system? I think there's a world of difference between the sound of some recording software. What you use for a/d/a conversion has a bigger effect on the sound, BUT the code used to manipulate audio data is different for every company, and is more audible than some people think.

Shane

[Nika]

Good call and good point, Shane.

Nika.

[d-dmusic]

Hi Shane :
No I didn't realize that there could be such a big difference between software app's and their respective sound. I imagined the differences to be relatively minor with the biggest difference being the AD/DA sound card convertors. I use Waves Gold bundle stuff for processing almost exclusively and I find the sound of those plug-ins amazing.

From what I've read, Cubase VST32 seems to be one of the better sounding "minor league" software app's. Major league or pro being ProTools, Paris, Soundscape, etc... where dedicated hardware plays a much bigger role-and much more $$$$$. These have MAJOR drawbacks in the MIDI department though which is really important to me. I REALLY don't want to run software in the "background" and have to toggle between them. It makes a slow process slower and from my experience with OMS - MUCH, MUCH less reliable. No app's in the background for me thanks.

There seem to be alot of threads kicking around at the moment with this very subject. Digital vs. Analog. EQ magazine has a good flaming thread happening with Nika contributing as well. I think digital sounds really good right now but people really want/need better and now seems to be the time. It is time for me but I don't see an alternative which a) sounds amazing b) is bullet proof reliable c) but still is within my budget. Perhaps I expect too much for what I am willing to spend.

[shaneperc]

As far as "midline" software apps go, I personally think that Logic Audio has a good sounding audio section. I haven't worked with it extensively (I messed around with a demo for a few days), but the sound maintained its clarity after recording in more than 10 tracks. Also, if you want a flexible midi environment, I haven't seen anything as powerful as Logic. I also haven't seen a program with that steep of a learning curve, considering what it does, but I'm sure having a manual will fix that.
Anyways, not to promote one application above another, but Logic is just an example of a quality program in regards to both audio and midi.

[HenryRobinett]

One big difference I've experienced I haven't seem mentioned in this thread is an outboard mixing console. It has made a tremendous difference with my mixes. I'm now summing my outputs at unity to a Ghost 32-8. The space is wider. I'm also using a lot more outboard compression. I'm getting more fat, analog type sounds although it was all recorded in my DAW - DP. We have a 2 inch 16/24 track MCI. I don't use it for various reasons, although I don't argue that it beats my DAW in fatness. I'd suggest an outboard mixer, at least test it out.

[d-dmusic]

Henry :
Ya man ! I tracked and mixed a CD years ago on a Ghost console and it was really great. Really, really nice sounding desk. EQ's were very "easy" on the ears.
Anytime I go back and listen to that project I'm always pleasantly surprised by the rich sound.

[shaneperc]

Henry,
Good idea. So you track to DP, and then run the individual tracks simultaneously through the Ghost? Do you go back into DP with the summed stereo signal then? Sounds like a great way to get around a digital mix bus. I mean, that makes for extra passes through a/d/a conversion, but on a clean sounding, quality console, I could easily imagine the improvement outweighing the drawback.

[HenryRobinett]

Actually I mix to Masterlink 24bit/88.2k, generally. I put a Drawmer Mercenary 1969 Compressor on the Ghost Master Bus. Sweet. I then drop the file back into Performer or Peak for further mastering when the time calls for it. I don't use the Masterlink for mastering however.

[tortoise]

My take on all this: With good converters, digital will get you most of the way there. I may selectively process specific tracks with analog color where it makes a difference, but most of the time I like the super-clean transparency of digital (which incidentally, I do at 24/44.1). My general philosophy is that you can add "analog color" to a sound, but you can't remove it, so I prefer to start with a clean digital signal where possible.

As for DAWs, I've tried (really!) to use a DAW to do all my work, and I can't do it. What I HAVE found works well is using a competent digital mixer in close conjunction with a good DAW. I feel I get the best of both worlds this way, and with proper configuration, it feels like the mixer and the computer are really one machine. The nice thing about physical hardware is that the user interface for your studio grows with your hardware; a mouse and monitor don't have the same kind of relationship to the amount of work they have to do and if you add a plug-ins or similar you are simply doing more with the same amount of UI bandwidth.

[d-dmusic]

torotise :
The idea of using a hardware mixer with a DAW is definitely the way to go.

It's not only the speed of a hardware mixer but also the "performance" aspect of actually "working" the knobs and faders in a constant 'tweak here tweak there, a little more a little less' fashion-very quickly, constantly adjusting, that may result in a better mix.

When I mix with the DAW that flow is cut-off to a certain extent by having to "click and scroll, make an adjustment, click and scroll, woops no that wasn't right.....etc..."

I lose the flow. It's just a personal preference that I've come to realize.

One of these days.....

[Ian]

Hi David Klausner

"It seems to me that there are several places where an improvement can be made in your system, but the obvious weak link looks like the DSP Factory. That's a 20 bit interface from a few years ago. While it had a number of cool features, it wasn't known for stellar quality converters"



Pretty dumb mis-information David. Get your facts straight or just keep quiet.

Cheers, Ian.

[michaelhoddy]

Which mis-information are you referring to? Please be more specific. Also, welcome to 18 months ago.

[JeffBarnett]

Ian,

David is a very bright and VERY well-informed individual. I wouldn't make a statement like that unless you intend to back it up. No offense, but we don't really know anything about you. This is your first post here (not that there's anything wrong with that - welcome to the forum), but you've never opened your mouth on our forum before. It's a pretty bold move to make that your first rattle out of the can. David is a moderator, and has 220 posts with an excellent track record for accuracy.

I hope you're able to back up your claim.

[JeffBarnett]

Hello, Ian? What specifically are you referring to? We're waiting.

[Ian]

The Ax88 to which d-dmusic refers is a very fine 24-, not 20-bit interface and the DS2416 uses 32-bits internally.

Why talk about an 'obvious' weak link when you 'obviously' don't know what you're talking about?

Why not be a little more humble? It's not too painful. That's all I'm saying.

Cheers, Ian.

[Nika]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ian
The Ax88 to which d-dmusic refers is a very fine 24-, not 20-bit interface

Perhaps the words "very fine" are in dispute? I think it is actually quite likely that the AX88 is the weak link in his system, knowing his system.

and the DS2416 uses 32-bits internally.

How is the fact that it "uses" 32 bit floating point internally for its post-processing relevant at all?

Why talk about an 'obvious' weak link when you 'obviously' don't know what you're talking about?

I think it's very likely he knows precisely what he is talking about.

Nika.

[xstatic]

I love seeing responses to posts that are almost two years old:D So just to add a little fuel to the fire... Wasn't the original post about trying to get that analog thickness and feel? In specific, having a hard time with harder rock maintaining that really full sound? At one point it was mentioned that different audio apps sound a little different in the way they mix files (summing, panning etc...). That was an excellent point. Many people do not realize some of the options that their apps offer. One important option is the ability to change your stereo pan laws and speaker placement (at least inside Cubase SX you can). This can really change your stereo width. It was also mentioned that better AD/DA would reeally change things. Another excellent point. It was even mentioned that this was one of the most important things. Well I sort of agree with that, there was one thing that I noticed that really made me think twice about that. I think what will change the whole project the most is preamps. How can you expect to make a huge sounding fat wide album on a mackie? Heavy rock often takes a lot of preamp quality, aggresiveness, and creativeness. All properties in which the mackie falls short. I think better preamps would make the most difference in D-Dmusic's rig. Also, this was not intended to be a Mackie bash post. Just stating that Mackie definately falls short in trying to track that type of music. Heavy music typically needs preamps that can really be driven, and a VERY functional channel EQ. My 2 cents:)

[guitarjoe]

Of course it is not as good as analogand never will be - we'll not for ten years or so -- but It is so much cheaper - spend your time playing

[parlormusic]

I've concluded that there are really just a few ways to get those results you describe. One way is the most obvious but not cost effective...use a tape machine. Another way is to record to analog tape and transfer those tracks to digital for editing and mixdown. The third way (which would probably be your ticket) is to invest in some high quality digital converters. The quality of the converters make a huge difference in the detail, spaciousness and depth of the sound.