It's just one mans opinion, but im affraid i share the same opinion. And if i could afford it I would be running all analog synths via midi and a atari recorded to tape...

http://www.skreddypedals.com/digital_sucks/index.htm

___________________
"The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes"

A couple of weeks ago, we ran a digitally recorded song played by a band onto 2 inch 24 track tape (30 ips), and then played it back into protools for comparrison.
Visually the effect was obvious, the tape saturation casuing a kinda of compression effect. The overall recording being boosted to the same visual height of the transients.
Sonically however, the sizzle of the high's such as the cymbals became less obvious on the tape version - a side effect of recording to tape. To my ears, the digital recording sounded much nicer in the HF range, while the rest was ok. The tape did sound slightly nicer in the LF range.

I think the reason people say analogue is warmer has more to do with the wow and flutter assosciated with it unlike the exact clocking of digital.

All I know is my Pulse gushes out low end like no other.

___________________


https://soundcloud.com/ghostea stuff

quote:

Originally posted by skot_e A couple of weeks ago, we ran a digitally recorded song played by a band onto 2 inch 24 track tape (30 ips), and then played it back into protools for comparrison. Visually the effect was obvious, the tape saturation casuing a kinda of compression effect. The overall recording being boosted to the same visual height of the transients. Sonically however, the sizzle of the high's such as the cymbals became less obvious on the tape version - a side effect of recording to tape. To my ears, the digital recording sounded much nicer in the HF range, while the rest was ok. The tape did sound slightly nicer in the LF range. I think the reason people say analogue is warmer has more to do with the wow and flutter assosciated with it unlike the exact clocking of digital.

Yeah, you would would most deffinately loose abit of the high end running into tape. But then again im sure a experienced engineer knows how to compensate for that. The compression the tape just give is soo fucking amazing.

___________________
"The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes"

quote:

Originally posted by fr0st It's just one mans opinion, but im affraid i share the same opinion. And if i could afford it I would be running all analog synths via midi and a atari recorded to tape... http://www.skreddypedals.com/digital_sucks/index.htm

And of course, you'll never release your music on anything but magnetic tape and vinyl.

Good luck.

___________________

www.jexmusic.com - My website

quote:

Originally posted by skot_e A couple of weeks ago, we ran a digitally recorded song played by a band onto 2 inch 24 track tape (30 ips), and then played it back into protools for comparrison. Visually the effect was obvious, the tape saturation casuing a kinda of compression effect. The overall recording being boosted to the same visual height of the transients. Sonically however, the sizzle of the high's such as the cymbals became less obvious on the tape version - a side effect of recording to tape. To my ears, the digital recording sounded much nicer in the HF range, while the rest was ok. The tape did sound slightly nicer in the LF range. I think the reason people say analogue is warmer has more to do with the wow and flutter assosciated with it unlike the exact clocking of digital.

tape saturation = "analog compression" that people like to talk about

analog warmth is the result of rolling off a bit of the high end when recorded to tape or vinyl. that's the reason why some dj's say they like the sound of records better than cd's, because they sound "warmer". you can sort of do that with a low-pass filter, but obviously it won't sound nearly as good as magnetic tape.

[/end pointless reply]

quote:

Originally posted by skot_e A couple of weeks ago, we ran a digitally recorded song played by a band onto 2 inch 24 track tape (30 ips), and then played it back into protools for comparrison. Visually the effect was obvious, the tape saturation casuing a kinda of compression effect. The overall recording being boosted to the same visual height of the transients. Sonically however, the sizzle of the high's such as the cymbals became less obvious on the tape version - a side effect of recording to tape. To my ears, the digital recording sounded much nicer in the HF range, while the rest was ok. The tape did sound slightly nicer in the LF range. I think the reason people say analogue is warmer has more to do with the wow and flutter assosciated with it unlike the exact clocking of digital.

good call

___________________
www.illysounds.com

quote:

Originally posted by fr0st And if i could afford it I would be running all analog synths via midi and a atari recorded to tape... [/url]

Exactly as I do then

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex And of course, you'll never release your music on anything but magnetic tape and vinyl. Good luck.

Nice. That tape hiss just adds so much... warmth to the track!

Hey folks, analog synths are great; just keep in mind that there's no detectable difference between the same waveform coming out of an analog device vs. a CD-quality (or better) digital one. Analog gear sometimes sounds different because it adds colour (distortion) to the sound. That certainly has its place; you can get some kick-ass fat sounds out of a Minimoog that you'll never achieve with V-Station. At the same time, if every single sound in a mix is coloured this way, the mix will be a total mess.

The best productions tend to be a mix of digital and analog sounds. However, if I had to choose, I'd go with digital; better to have a sterile mix than a muddy one.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

I'd go with digital; better to have a sterile mix than a muddy one.

Hell no F that. I love the old school muddy shit thats still banging, I can't stand todays sterile Blank & Jones shit.

___________________


https://soundcloud.com/ghostea stuff

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalninja Hell no F that. I love the old school muddy shit thats still banging, I can't stand todays sterile Blank & Jones shit.

There is soo much beauty in imperfection..

___________________
"The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes"

I wonder how many people are still convinced that when you import sounds to your computer, you'll still have the 'analogue' sound you started with from your synth...

I personally see no reason to 'worry' or bash software further because it would/will eradicate (to a certain extent) the hardware. I would spend less time in comparing software with hardware all the time and rather just get to improving it since the market is definately there.

Not saying todays softsynths can rival the real analogue sound, though it might get there one day... Look at how far it's come. In the end, when a software version could be invented that exactly and naturally compies the sound from its hardware counterpart; it'll cost you about 10 (or more) times less, can be directly integrated into your host and will need no space in your studio (you can take it around everywhere).

You don't need hardware to create an authentic sound (or steer away from todays production-perfectness hype) - that's just the 'audio engineer' at work, not the musician

___________________
Icone / Van Gelder / Blue Manta / The Elemental

Icone Home
Icone Store -> New Percussion SAMPLE CD here!
Icone MySpace