Digital vs Analog Consoles

[houseofhits]

I've been a live sound sound engineer for 30 yrs. In my opinion, digital consoles as currently configured for live are a huge pain in the ass. Firstly, & surely most importantly, they don't sound very good. Analog to digital converters, & vice versa (good ones) cost money. The dozens in mixing consoles are usually very average. The dynamics (compression etc.) are totally inferior to decent hardware versions, same as in DAW world.

Operationally, they're a total joke. Live sound is largely about ease of intuitive use. There is no digital board in existence that lets you react as fast as an analog board. How is this progress?

For extremely complex shows, automation & recall ability are useful, but a board doesn't have to be fully digital for that. The way forward is analog audio electronics with a well designed digital control surface. The closest I've seen to this is the Harrison Showconsole, which is a proprietary board not generally available.

Digital consoles are loved by production companies, because they can do away with outboard eqs, dynamics etc. But for us poor saps who have to use them, it's a huge compromise, & the audience is shortchanged in the process.

[Rad]

I can't comment on the usefulness of analog vs digital consoles for live mixing but can say 3 things

1. HOW exactly the digital part is implemented matters a lot for a digital console and can make a huge difference. A lot of the degradation of sound in some models can be traced down to poor (or worse, ABSENT!) implementation of dither. When you have many channels, this adds up to exactly what we call "bad digital sound". All it means is poor design, in the same way a poor analog design can be noisy or muddy.

2. "Digital compression, EQ, and effects is inferior" -- respectfully disagree.
This is what all major artists and studios use today, and when you put on a Chicago or Toto tape from the 70's, there is a definite difference in the sound quality, and not in favor of these oldies (as much as I like them). Obviously when done the right (i.e. expensive) way, digital can sound very good. In the old days, a good analog tape machine used to cost 20,000$ and more. Why are you expecting to get the same quality in digital for, say, $3000?

3. Some more degradation of sound in digital occurs when picking the bits per fader. Usually manufacturers these days pick 8-bit faders whose filters are succeptible to "zipper noise". The reason? Cost-efficiency, same as with outsourcing.

My humble opinion, to recap: digital CAN and SHOULD be done properly where it sounds as good as (or better) than analog.
The reason we're not seeing this in the real world is the general dilution of product quality which by now is pervasive.
In the old days the midnset was "let's make a great product, the better it is, the more it will sell".
Now the mindset is, "Let's make a product that sells, don't matter how crappy it is".
This explains 90% of the price variation in the market today.
Ditto.

[exclibr]

Looking at it from my different perspective of running live sound in a live theatre application, where you can't count on the performance being done the same way every night, (especially with amateurs in community theatres), you'd better be able to "ride" every function on every channel all at the same time, which you can't do on a digital console. My hand never leaves the board when someone is on the stage. You are constantly making adjustments, sometimes to multiple channels at the same time. Can't see how you could do that on a digital console. IMHO

[houseofhits]

Hey Rad, can't agree with you re digital compression. Not all major groups use it; if they do, it's usually in conjunction with hardware units. Do the experiment yourself: for example, find a real UREI 1176, then compare it to any software version. Some are better than others, but I'd suggest that nobody will assert that the plug in is better than the real thing, or even as good. It is all down to expediency, & in that I agree with you.

Your point that digital is usually badly implemented is right, for sure. The problem is, it's almost never well implemented, and that's because a) people don't have the same standards they used to, and b) digital is very hard to make sound good.I know this intuitively from yrs of experience, but also because I know digital design engineers, and they all are frustrated by the constant roadblocks & shortcomings they experience in a technology that promises so much & has delivered so little sonically. You also can't assume that the latest bit of digital gear sounds better than older digital gear. For example, my 1990 16 bit Denon DAT recorder sounds markedly superior to 24 bit Protools. That's a disgraceful situation. Similarly, the old Sony & Mitsubishi DASH open reel digital recorders sounded much better than most of today's DAWS, & I'm certainly not alone in that opinion. Why? Can't say for sure, but something happens when you put audio into a standard computer. Something to do with file buffering, which the stand alone digital recorders can address in a way that software in a computer can't.

I own a Korg DM 1000 that can record at nearly 6,000,000 samples per second. Does it sound better than cd level audio? Of course. Does it sound better than analog tape. In direct A/B comparison of recordings of the same source, no. Unbelievable. The digital paradigm is deeply flawed. Maybe they'll improve it radically, maybe not, but currently we're in the dark ages of audio, in my opinion.

[dpd]

For example, my 1990 16 bit Denon DAT recorder sounds markedly superior to 24 bit Protools. That's a disgraceful situation.

I'd be willing to bet, under any objective measure of performance (linearity, noise, effective number of bits, etc.), that the converters and digital processing in current ProTools will be superior to the Denon DAT.

What differences are you hearing that lead you to this conclusion? How different are the setups? What PT interface is being used?

[houseofhits]

Hey dpd, objective analysis of audio can only tell us that according to our measuring tools, which may or may not be accurate, one device has a better
set of specs than another device. As often as not, that has no bearing on our perception of the two compared devices, subjectively. If that was not the case, everyone would prefer the sound of cds to vinyl, for example, because the specs, according to popular theory, are better for the cd. But in fact, the opposite is true, that is, the vast majority of people, when given a direct comparison of the same program via cd & vinyl, where there is a reasonable correlation between the quality of the cd player & the record player, prefer the sound of the vinyl. I've done that test dozens of times over the yrs, including blind tests, the result is always the same. Everyone prefers the analog. Is the situation different with DVD A & SACD? Yes, they fare much better than cd. But they're basically dead in the water, as more people embrace mp3. God help us.

To answer your question, I recorded a grand piano to Protools HD using HD converters at 48 kHz, & simultaneously to the Denon, also to Nuendo at 48. Denon sounded truer to the mic feed than Protools. That wasn't the case, however, with Nuendo; Nuendo was more three dimensional. The pre-eminence of Protools is a real shame, just because it doesn't sound as good
as some of the other DAWs. I'm buying a RADAR. Best sounding digital recorder out there, for me.

[DAS]

Sound quality is of course subjective. What you and your buddies or me and my buddies like may not universally apply. In the days of analog, engineers were always trying to minimize noise and distortion while maximizing linearity. An oversimplification maybe, but that's pretty much the gist of it. Those qualities can be represented as specs, and while we may say specs don't tell the whole story, if properly done they really can tell the vast majority of it. And digital, when properly done, is as good or better than the best analog systems in those categories. Where digital falls down is in:

A) Implementation - Not all systems are well executed, just like in analog (we seem to only remember the very best analog gear).

B) Many analog systems provide distortions and non-linearities some users find enjoyable. Take that away and "it doesn't sound as good" to some people.

Finally, I am always hearing about some test someone did to reach some conclusion. Most of the time, if I dig into it, those tests have faults in them which call the validity of the conclusion into question. I have Denon, Panasonic and Fostex DAT machines in my studio. None of them sounds as good or accurate to me and the other guys at the studio as the Digidesign 192 i/o. Depends on what you're listening for I suppose.

As for digital mixers....I hear all the time how difficult they are to use. I thought this too, but once I really tried it and got the hang of it I have to admit I don't miss analog boards at all. I can get around just as fast on the digital desk. It took me some time to get there, but it's a learned skill. Once you get over the initial discomfort of not having a single knob for each function you begin to realize it can actually be faster to have a single function of multiple channels pop up under one knob (right under your nose, not down at the other end of the desk) at the press of a button. It's futile to try to explain this as people tried to explain it to me before and I just didn't buy it. But once I really got in and had to use some digital desks I found it to be way less of an issue than I thought it would be. For what it's worth...

[jpleong]

Um, just so you guys know, the original post is older than some of my friends' kids.

And my two cents -I mix live sound weekly on either a Midas Venice or a Mackie TT24 depending on the room. Does the Venice sound better? With its transformer preamps and great circuit design, yes. Is it faster to react with? Yes and no. It is a little faster to "ride" EQs but that's about it. On the flip side it takes a bit longer, for me, to get a good mix out of the Midas because I have preset the Mackie with EQ curves and compression settings that I recall at the touch of a button. Is that a 58 mic'ing a Vox AC15? Well, I know that preset curve "22 - e guitar Vox" is what I've liked before. No arduously long sound checks.

Then, if we get into ergonomic issues, there's the whole mess of turning my head and ducking to get to the rack processors for the Midas which I can't truly hear what they're doing until my head isn't being blocked by the rack.

I absolutely love the sound of the Midas, don't get me wrong. The Venice is already retaining its resale value compared to the TT24 (they were purchased and installed at the same time). However, given the choice to mix a fast-moving show or a festival with little to no lead time, I will choose the Mackie every time.

JP

[michaelhoddy]

Yeah, quick show of hands- who here in this wonderful thread has actually worked with any of the larger digital live desks in question on the gig- Digidesign Venue, Icon, Yamaha PM-1d, PM-5d, even M7CL, etc?

This is always a useful reality check for all the "opinions" people have about these things. If one's only experience with a digital board came 8 years ago with an original Yamaha 01 hooked up to some cheap EV speakers, I can understand the sentiment, but it doesn't reflect the reality of today's higher-end equipment.

[michaelhoddy]

Operationally, they're a total joke. Live sound is largely about ease of intuitive use. There is no digital board in existence that lets you react as fast as an analog board. How is this progress?

This is complete and utter BS. I'm not going to try to quantify reaction times, but let's just sat that selecting the proper channel with one hand and adjusting whatever parameter in the common center section with the other hand isn't exactly slower than locating the proper channel and then finding the proper knob in a sea of knobs on a larger analog desk. In fact, it might be faster.

But for us poor saps who have to use them, it's a huge compromise, & the audience is shortchanged in the process.

Yeah, I'm sure the audience really cares.

[jpleong]

finding the proper knob in a sea of knobs on a larger analog desk.

It may be just because I'm kind of clumsy but I have found that I have a greater chance of accidentally turning the wrong channel's EQ on an analog console. Oops.

JP

[DAS]

Yeah, quick show of hands- who here in this wonderful thread has actually worked with any of the larger digital live desks in question on the gig- Digidesign Venue, Icon, Yamaha PM-1d, PM-5d, even M7CL, etc?

This is always a useful reality check for all the "opinions" people have about these things. If one's only experience with a digital board came 8 years ago with an original Yamaha 01 hooked up to some cheap EV speakers, I can understand the sentiment, but it doesn't reflect the reality of today's higher-end equipment.

It's not quite that simple, though I agree with you. Engineers fear the digital desks. Most of us probably didn't have a great (or at least comfortable) experience the first one to three times we used them. I know of a number of engineers who after doing their first couple of shows on a digital board were frustrated, which quickly reinforces their fears about them. That (or any) initial impression seems to live on for a VERY long time with most engineers. My experience has informed me that most of us who have mixed on big, analog desks for years have to get past this admittedly uncomfortable learning curve before we begin to warm up to it. Once there, however, I really see no need to go back.

[dpd]

Being an old, died-in-the-wool analog designer, I have a hard time arguing with myself about the superiority of analog vs digital. But, old digital vs new digital? Like I said, newer digital is objectively cleaner (less distorted). However, there's a lot more to what you compared than simply the digital stages and those may impart significant sonic footprints on whatever signals pass through them.

[Rad]

I own a Korg DM 1000 that can record at nearly 6,000,000 samples per second. Does it sound better than cd level audio? Of course. Does it sound better than analog tape.

Well, let's put some perspective to this. First, the reason why the DM1000 has to do 6,000,000 samples in the first place is that it is a 1-bit converter. Without these 6,000,000 samples it wouldn't be able to achieve a dynamic range of 106dB or more, so in this case more doesn't equal better, it just equals "necessary".
Second, it is a widely used misconception that higher sample rates inherently sound better. Which is, of course, completely wrong. Higher sample rates can and do sound better on lower-quality converters because, due to design issues, they are having a hard time reproducing material at 44.1 without phase shift and high frequency roloff. But this is due to cheap design, not due to higher sample rates superiority.
Thirdly, the DSD method used by the Korg DM 1000 is a form of PCM (pulse code modulation) in every sense of the word - the same method used in CD's. Pundits point out to some reasons why it can sound different than CD, however, even the biggest specialists can't offer a theoretical reason for it being either better or worse.

The thing is that in 90% of the discussion we're making comparisons of unobservables, i.e. of the IMPLEMENTATION of digital audio, which often is flawed producing vastly varying results.

[michaelhoddy]

It's not quite that simple, though I agree with you. Engineers fear the digital desks. Most of us probably didn't have a great (or at least comfortable) experience the first one to three times we used them. I know of a number of engineers who after doing their first couple of shows on a digital board were frustrated, which quickly reinforces their fears about them. That (or any) initial impression seems to live on for a VERY long time with most engineers. My experience has informed me that most of us who have mixed on big, analog desks for years have to get past this admittedly uncomfortable learning curve before we begin to warm up to it. Once there, however, I really see no need to go back.

I can handle people struggling with the mindset shift that happens in how you approach workflow differently on digital versus analog. It's just that I have a suspicion that there's a lot of opinion being offered by people who have not even worked a single gig on a recent larger-format digital desk. That's why I want to know.

If someone says "Hey, I worked a 5d on 2 shows and just never felt comfortable," that's fine. The knocks on digital desks that are being offered are age-old conjectures which smack of someone with very little seat time on any digital desk.