analog vs digital recording

[Waxx]

When I was a teen and already into photography, but not that good - I became an assistant for a commercial photographer for a magazine. He taught me right away that a film camera is not an eye, and once I understood that I became a good photographer myself.
Will never forget it, and am glad that I left cinematography about the time that film went away and digital cameras became ubiquitous.

I don't mind digital photography, it makes the life of the photographer a lot easier. But it won't make you a good photographer because the technique became more accessible. You can't fix the lack of talent with tech, you can just make it easier for a talented person to do his thing. And i don't miss the darkroom and the messing with nasty chemicals to develop the pictures at all.

 

[antcollinet]

But it won't make you a good photographer because the technique became more accessible.

I found the opposite.

You learn, by doing, getting it wrong, learning why it is wrong and doing better next time. The ability to take loads of pictures without worrying about cost accelerates this.

Even more significant - the near instantaneous feedback from pressing the shutter button to seeing the results compared to the often weeks until you develop a film means you can actually know what you did to get the result, and can often adjust immediately to improve it.

My photography improved immensely and quickly after I got my first digital camera.

 

[Mulder]

With the advent of ai, photography is strongly devalued. It all becomes rather pointless.

 

[Waxx]

I learned it the old way, i even went to an art academy for a while to learn photography before digital was good enough to replace it. And then you learn the hard way to make a coposition on a viewer that will give you the right picture. I don't do like many today, make a million pictures to get a few good ones, i mostly only take few pictures and know there will be good ones in it because i can judge it good enough from the viewer (an lcd display today) as we had to do that instantly. We did not get a second chance, so we learned how to get it right from start. That is something i miss from younger photographer who never worked full analog.

But that digital photography has a lot of advantages i totally agree. I still got my analog gear, but did not touch it anymore for over 20 years as digital is just better (except as effect maybe)

 

[antcollinet]

With the advent of ai, photography is strongly devalued. It all becomes rather pointless.

Only in the same way all the other creative arts are - including music.

 

[antcollinet]

I learned it the old way, i even went to an art academy for a while to learn photography before digital was good enough to replace it. And then you learn the hard way to make a coposition on a viewer that will give you the right picture. I don't do like many today, make a million pictures to get a few good ones, i mostly only take few pictures and know there will be good ones in it because i can judge it good enough from the viewer (an lcd display today) as we had to do that instantly. We did not get a second chance, so we learned how to get it right from start. That is something i miss from younger photographer who never worked full analog.

But that digital photography has a lot of advantages i totally agree. I still got my analog gear, but did not touch it anymore for over 20 years as digital is just better (except as effect maybe)

In the end though - it is the result that matters. Not the process.

That includes whether the image is of a real thing, or artificially created (eg by AI) and, especially for documentary photography, has it been edited in any way that alters the content.

 

[SuicideSquid]

Apart from the romantic side of things and work flow,he points out to a very important factor as well.

It's the way digital evolution makes previous digital stuff obsolete in a very short time requiring a constant flow of investment.
It happens now,so imagine th early days.Plus the way digital stuff can fail spectacularly by a simple bug,again,specially at the early days.

And these stuff aren't the cheap 1k-5k-10k we use at home,you go at least six figure to get nice machines.

This isn't really true in the realm of digital studio recording.

MIDI has been unchanged for close to 50 years. ADAT and SPDIF standards for digital audio have been in place for 40 years. The VST format has been around for 30 years. I've got VST2 plugins from the early 2000s and a MIDI synth from the 80s that I still use. I've got a couple of good mic pres with analog and ADAT out that will work with any audio interface made in the last 40 years and will continue to work with every audio interface made for the foreseeable future.

If you want to keep up with the latest and greatest software plugins, sequencing software, etc., you may have to replace your audio interface around once every 10-15 years as it stops being supported on whatever the current OS is, and update your DAW license from time to time. But your existing stuff doesn't stop working, and you don't need to replace the stuff that's working with the new version unless the new version does something you need that the old one didn't. Your microphones or outboard audio processors or software synthesizers or VST plugins don't go "obsolete" and will work for decades. And if you've got a workflow that works for you you don't need to change anything - a friend of mine is still using an audio interface from the early 2000s on a Windows XP machine and it works great for him.

There's also a significant cost and learning curve associated with maintaining analog gear - a studio tape machine needs regular maintenance, and analog tape itself is far more expensive than digital storage. Personally, I probably spend $3,000-$5,000 per decade on updating my DAW license, PC upgrades, and a once-a-decade purchase of a new audio interface. I imagine if I was operating an analog studio I'd spend at least that and probably more on analog tape and on servicing and maintaining my decades-old gear.

 

[Philbo King]

I still have a Teac 3340S (same one shown in the title of the video), mostly because I can't find anyone who wants it. I did the whole tape route, cleaning heads before each session, demagetizing the tape path, cutting, splicing, etc. Also learning the art of punch-in recording. That, plus the cost (and rarity) of new tape make it a non-starter. It did sound lovely, but never accurate.

These days the only use it sees is during mastering, where I record 4 stems, get them immediately off the playback head, and back into the DAW. I do it very rarely these days; there are tape emulation plugins now that are quite effective.

 

[boxerfan88]

He says analog got better spacial cues.

https://www.****************/2025/09/hifi-legend-vinyl-information-digital/?

 

[solderdude]

There are many folks claiming this.
The science is clear about it and refutes some of the things van der Steen 'believes'.

 

[Robin L]

He says analog got better spacial cues.

https://www.****************/2025/09/hifi-legend-vinyl-information-digital/?

"Meanwhile, analog playback adds its own timing imperfections. This is caused by speed instability, off-center pressings, cartridge alignment, and the phase behavior of the RIAA curve."

What Richard Vandersteen is saying is that the LP format adds distortion.

I know the LP format adds pre/post echo, digital recording and playback doesn't. A lot of the sense that there's more "there there" in LP replay comes from this specific distortion.

Off-center pressings are my least favorite distortion provided by LP playback.

Silly, isn't it?

 

[Cbdb2]

Different topic... same words analog vs digital being used but here it is not so much about technical nor audible (or not) differences but rather that the slower and more expensive analog method forces one to record differently which can result in different recordings.

Or not. You can use a DAW exactly the same as a tape machine if you want and not have to deal with all the negatives of tape.
The biggest advantage of tape is that the studio will make a lot more money. As for creativity, that should have been done in rehearsal.

 

[Cbdb2]

So it's not about technical differences but rather the 'taking short breaks' which is kind of 'obligated' in the analog recording chain and disappeared in the 'digital' recording chain.

When recording its not the media its the people that decide when and how a long a break is. You stop when somethings wrong and take a short break to talk about what your doing. The tech dosnt hit record till the disscusion is over. If the musician says "give me a minute to try something' you wait. If the disscussion is "once more" your waiting for tape to wind and could even loose some creativity.
Your in the studio (unless your already rich and famous, or own it like this guy) to record not to write and rehearse.

 

[Cbdb2]

With the advent of ai, photography is strongly devalued. It all becomes rather pointless.

It started with cameras in every pocket, phones. People take a 100 times as many pictures as before. Most of those pics only get looked at once if at all and even good ones get lost in the shuffle.

 

[Cbdb2]

He says analog got better spacial cues.

https://www.****************/2025/09/hifi-legend-vinyl-information-digital/?

How can "micro timing" or phase be better on something with wow and flutter? Ever see a sine wave come off vinyl? Its timing/phase is anything but stable. This phase movement will often spread out your sound stage and he thinks this means more audio information.

 

[Palmer]

Or not. You can use a DAW exactly the same as a tape machine if you want and not have to deal with all the negatives of tape.
The biggest advantage of tape is that the studio will make a lot more money. As for creativity, that should have been done in rehearsal.

I can not tell you how often the rewind button on the Studer, Otari, MCI - what have you - saved at least my job that particular moment, when I needed to come up with a solution. When the instant digital rewind came along, that little helper went away - sadly.

 

[DVDdoug]

I can think of ONE advantage to tape. On a 3-head machine the playback head is right-behind the record head and you can monitor what's just been recorded. It's not unusual with digital to find out the next day that something terrible happened. Along the same lines, computers are the least reliable things we own, especially if your computer isn't dedicated to audio & recording and it gets messed-with during the day. But, I'm NOT going back analog!!!

If the musician says "give me a minute to try something' you wait. If the disscussion is "once more" your waiting for tape to wind and could even loose some creativity.

I'm drifting off-topic but there is a fun-joyful rock song from the analog days by Larry Norman called Let That Tape Keep Rolling

 

[Keith_W]

Ever see a sine wave come off vinyl?

I haven't. I'd love to see one if you have an example?

 

[Sal1950]

That's always the same old story : analog is better, bla bla bla...
If not for the sound, it's for conveniency in recording, mixing and on and on....
This is untrue, period.

AMEN,
What a crock of BS.
If not about the sound then what?
I thought that High Fidelity was goal we were shooting for since Edison?
YES, it is all Black and White.

 

[JSmith]

MUSINGS / MEASUREMENTS: Thoughts on Vinyl LP Fidelity... (And thoughts on Sgt. Pepper's 50th Anniversary Remix.)

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

JSmith