Interesting article on analog console vs in the box

The analog vs digital debate will probably never truly die, but hopefully more people will come to understand that all the vintage analog gear in the world will not fix "you suck":
 
http://therecordingrevolu...-analog-console-mixes/

I wonder what would have been said if there was one analog mix and four digital-in-the-box mixes and the analog mix won. 

drewfx1
I wonder what would have been said if there was one analog mix and four digital-in-the-box mixes and the analog mix won. 

I'm sure the manufacturer of that console would have put out a nice article for someone to post. 

bapu

drewfx1
I wonder what would have been said if there was one analog mix and four digital-in-the-box mixes and the analog mix won. 

I more wonder what your response would have been if that was the case.

Prolly wouldn't be any response. I have no problem with people who subjectively prefer analog for it's idiosyncrasies. I rather enjoy some of them myself.

dmbaer

drewfx1

bapu

drewfx1
I wonder what would have been said if there was one analog mix and four digital-in-the-box mixes and the analog mix won. 

I more wonder what your response would have been if that was the case.

Prolly wouldn't be any response. I have no problem with people who subjectively prefer analog for it's idiosyncrasies. I rather enjoy some of them myself.

The point that's normally missing from these type of debates is that if the producers of, say, Dark Side of the Moon or even late Beatles had access to modern DAW technology, I'd be willing to bet they would have embraced it without a moment's second thought.

I don't know if that is to be quite honest. That might have cherry picked certain abilities but I bet most would have preferred the old way. Elton John for instance has said that the record making process has slowed down because of tech.

backwoods

dmbaer

drewfx1

bapu

drewfx1
I wonder what would have been said if there was one analog mix and four digital-in-the-box mixes and the analog mix won. 

I more wonder what your response would have been if that was the case.

Prolly wouldn't be any response. I have no problem with people who subjectively prefer analog for it's idiosyncrasies. I rather enjoy some of them myself.

The point that's normally missing from these type of debates is that if the producers of, say, Dark Side of the Moon or even late Beatles had access to modern DAW technology, I'd be willing to bet they would have embraced it without a moment's second thought.

I don't know if that is to be quite honest. That might have cherry picked certain abilities but I bet most would have preferred the old way. Elton John for instance has said that the record making process has slowed down because of tech.

Itr probably has slowed down among those who can't let go of the past. I can't imagine a twenty something year old audio engineer suddenly getting faster if we gave him a room full of analog gear. i think any of us used to doing things a certain way are going to be slower if that process changes.  There's certainly no scientific reason why  analog would be quicker. Also from John's perspective things may seem slower because Audio Engineer's are less likely to be conservative with takes because tape expense is no longer a factor.  I found that when photography went from film to digital that i initially shot far more pics than  i usually would, increasing  the time spent sorting through them. Once I stopped shooting with the fact that i had an unlimited roll in mind, my efficiency increased.  if Elton John took any of his recording sessions from the 70's and did them take for take digitally, i cannot conceive of how it would be possible for it to be slower and if anything it would theoretically be faster.

dubdisciple
 
 Also from John's perspective things may seem slower because Audio Engineer's are less likely to be conservative with takes because tape expense is no longer a factor.  

That's what I assumed he meant anyway. Having access to unlimited takes probably slows the process for many people because there's this pressure to capture the perfect take. Yes you could stop recording takes now and go with what you've got, but there's always this niggling doubt that by not doing another 50, you might have missed out on some moment of magic. This same is probably true for photography. People are snapping as many shots as they can instead of just 4 or 5, because they want to make sure they have all of their bases covered. With tape and film the decision to stop recording and go with what you've got is effectively made for you, thus shortening the process. 

all that matters, is the end result.
 
most people cannot hear the difference anymore,
 
with more and more 'pros' moving to ITB mixing,
is this argument even relevent anymore,
for ANYONE,
other than analog gear makers?
 

UbiquitousBubba
IMUWO (In My Utterly Worthless Opinion), the prohibitive cost of recording in the days of yore ensured that nobody but a rockstar would ever set foot in a studio without fully prepared material. Each song would have been road tested in front of live audiences through multiple iterations before the tape ever rolled. Each band member would know their part cold before anyone considered recording. The songs would be so rehearsed, the instruments would almost play themselves out of habit. When that studio door creaked open, the producer cracked his face open with an inhuman grin, and the money counter started flying, the band's primary concern was getting out while they still had any money left. You tried to nail each and every performance perfectly because the money was flying out of your wallet every single minute.
 
When recording time is essentially free and you can have an unlimited number of takes, you've got time to play rockstar and make it up as you go. If you want to spend an entire day recording gaseous emissions (and you know you do), then you can do it with no regrets (unless you share your studio space with other family members). The motivation to make sure that the next take is golden may be missing without some other form of pressure. 

Sadly, I see this sort of thing too much. The studio I work at provides free studio time to teens. So many will show up trying to wing it in the studio and the results are as you stated. In fact, I get filled with joy when people actually are prepared. A kid came so prepared the other day that his song practically mixed itself. He only needed a few takes to finish tracking a song you could tell he had rehearsed countless times. 

IMHO, analog vs digital is the least of modern music production's problems.
 
I own many recent albums recorded entirely on analog gear and which have been hyped as such, but which I can't bear to listen to. They're actually some of the worst sounding albums I've heard. Too much of everything too loud all the time. There's no room left for me as a listener.
 
OTOH, I own a couple of albums recorded digitally which may lack a certain little something to my old ears but which I rank among my all-time favorite albums, nevertheless. 

Of course they did.  The had engineers and producers who knew how to use them.

yorolpal
Of course they did.  The had engineers and producers who knew how to use them.

Bingo.

It's still one of my four reference albums to check out new monitors. I miss Roger Nichols.

I'm always surprised at how often I Google something and the result I'm looking for was posted on this very forum by one of our own. Here's Bitflipper with some very nice Nightfly information from 2011:
 
http://forum.cakewalk.com...tflyquot-m2334122.aspx

As someone said earlier, a very interesting thread. We still use an analog board at our church for recording (an Allen and Health GL2200). The setup has two effects patched in, reverb and chorus and patched back into the main mix. It then goes to a stereo compressor, followed by a 31-band EQ and then onto a CD. Everything is recorded in real time.
 
What I have found is that the analog recording allows you to get away with stuff that you simply can't get away with in the digital realm. Gain is the main culprit here, as when I go over 0 db on a digital board it is clip city, but that is not a problem with the analog board. The other thing is that everything is recorded at once and exported to a 2-track 'stereo' CD. So the process is quicker (as someone alluded to earlier), but there are no do-overs. Forget to unmute a channel on a guitar solo and your stuck - you can't get it back. You also seem to be 'chasing' stuff at times. Digital onto multiple tracks and you can fix to your hearts content, but it will take considerably longer. Multiple tracks on tape and you loose quality each time you redo it, no loss when in digital.
 
In the end I think each has its positives and negatives. The key is to find what works for you. And as Yorolpal so rightly pointed out, in the end its not the gear but the gear-head and the talent that really matters. I tell my guys we have better equipment than the Beatles had when they recorded Abbey Road. If you don't get a good mix, don't blame the equipment!