# Analog or Digital Recording?



## ampaholic (Sep 19, 2006)

I am considering the plunge into a home studio and for me the first decision is whether to go the computer digital route or to lean towards a more vintage style with a reel-to-reel, mixer, etc.
I know the advantage of digital is supreme flexibility but is there still room out there for old school recording?
Your thoughts and advice would be appreciated.
Thanks!
PS: I'm a tinkerer sort of guy with lots of old vintage guitar gear hence buying 30 year old stuff doesn't scare me off.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

Why not select some tools from both sides to create the sounds you like.

It's hard to argue the benefits of going digital. I spent 30 years recording in the analogue world until 8 years ago, when I no longer could support my arguments of staying old school. The quality, ease of use and cost of a computer based recording station have all improved dramatically since then.

My position is that you should use the best available analogue equipment you can find at the front end (microphones, preamps, etc.), capture it into the digital domain for processing (tracking, editing, mixing) and then use the best analogue path at the final stages (optical compression, good studio monitoring) to master your product.

For a tinkerer (Hi, my name is Ron, and I'm a tinkerer too...) there are many opportunities to build, tweak and salvage your way to customizing your new setup. Build some stomp boxes; use an old tape machine as an insert into your chain to create some delays or lo-fi effects; make kick mics out of old speakers; dismantle some old dry cells (wear gloves and a mask!) and build yourself a carbon pole microphone; make your own cables, snakes and patch bays; get a lava lamp collection started.... 

If you're not put off by the learning curve associated with any new technology, learning to use software effectively is a great way to "tinker" your day away.


----------



## Kenmac (Jan 24, 2007)

I've been recording with digital since the mid 90's or so. First with a Roland VS-880, then later with a Roland VS-1680 and as Ronmac said the benefits are the quality and the ease of use. A co-worker friend of mine likes to tell me about his days in broadcasting school when they had to make tape edits using a razor blade and this wasn't all that long ago, maybe the mid 80s or so. The funny thing is I've been messing around with my old Fostex X-15 four track recorder recently and it seems so primitive now compared to the software program on my "music only" computer, the DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) Reaper. IMO, digital is the way to go.


----------



## ampaholic (Sep 19, 2006)

Very good advice guys, and pretty much what I was expecting. I am perhaps a bit intimidated by the digital route but recognize the benefits.
Now here are another couple of questions:
1) Much that I have read strongly recommends a dedicated computer for recording. An extra expense for sure but my personal experience with the computer I am using right now is that with all the crap I have on it some pretty strange things happen. Your thoughts?
2) If you were starting from scratch and buying a new computer would you go PC or Mac?
By the way Ronmac, you gave me some pretty stellar advice about a Bourgeois acoustic at Musicstop in Moncton so I'm already trusting your opinion!
Thanks
Paul


----------



## MGW GUITAR WORKS (Sep 2, 2008)

Hey Bro
I went through the same thing when I built my studio. So I decided to go with an analog 24ch board into a digital Alesis HD24. Kinda best of both worlds but I get the job done. Good Luck


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Really hard call.

I'd agree with Ronmac's suggestion of a bit of both.

I love the quick, simple, versatility of digital, but R-R just sounds more real... or is that "reel" 

Heck, I even do my final mixdowns to a Metal IV cassette with Dolby-C and then re-record to the computer for making mp3's or burning.

But then, I'm an old fashioned guy :wink:

Cheers!


**append**

Found a Canuck tape supplier: http://www.duplication.ca/shop/home.php?cat=68


----------



## Kenmac (Jan 24, 2007)

ampaholic said:


> Very good advice guys, and pretty much what I was expecting. I am perhaps a bit intimidated by the digital route but recognize the benefits.
> Now here are another couple of questions:
> 1) Much that I have read strongly recommends a dedicated computer for recording. An extra expense for sure but my personal experience with the computer I am using right now is that with all the crap I have on it some pretty strange things happen. Your thoughts?
> 
> ...


For question one I'd say definitely get a "music only" computer. That way you won't have to deal with the crap you get from the web and you can tweak the system to your liking. 

Question two, well I'm not going to get into the whole PC vs Mac thing but for me personally my "music only" computer is running Windows XP Professional and has been for the past two years. I've never had any problems with it and related to my first answer, I've tweaked it with the help of the MusicXP website here: http://www.musicxp.net/index.php Let us know what you decide to do and if you need any tips, just ask.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Paul said:


> Ampex and 3M haven't made tape in years. NOS is not a selling point for what is essentially sticky tape and rust.


Bake the tape. It works as a ressurection.


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

*recordering*

I started out many years ago with a fostex X-15 ( 600.00) unit, very limited and the end result really wasnt that good.
Then to a Fostex 280 ( Tape) and from there i bought a Yamaha MT400 ( tape ) both these machine gave you a decent recording.
The Yamaha could record 4 tracks at once,.

Then i bought a Digital Yamaha Aw16g ( WOW !!!! what a machine... You can record one track and make a copy of it,or several copys with a push of a button.. try doing that with a analog.
will record 8 tracks at once , so a great machine to recordyour live band

I think you know what a digital can do. All the benefits. No loss of data with bouncing tracks..

I guess i have the frame of mind.. if i am going to spend my hrs recording, i want it too be the best i can afford, and digital is cheap for what you get.

I don't like the idea of computer recordering becuase for me, i spend enough time sitting here..I like a recorder that u can move around..I could take it outside if i wanted too.

The best buy for the money is the 16 track Yamaha recorder.Built like a tank and has 20 gig drive and burner, for 400.00 or less.
These in Ontario with tax where 1800.00 not that long ago.

I would go digital all the way.. u can also easily load your songs on the computer to share your music.

Rick


----------



## NB_Terry (Feb 2, 2006)

I love my Boss BR-600 recorder. 

It's digital, I only hook it up to the computer to convert to MP3s. 

When I was in a band that had "silent" practices thru headphones, it also served as my guitar processor. 

It has built in mics that are very good, bass simulations, very good drum sounds that you can manually play and even pitch correction, compression, reverbs, etc..

Best $350 I ever spent.

Even though it's digital, I like the fact that I'm not sitting in front of a computer when I record guitar tracks, etc..


----------



## ampaholic (Sep 19, 2006)

Looks like digital is the method of choice! I just picked up a book titled "Analog Recording-Using Vintage Gear in Home Studios". It appears to promote the use of both analog and digital together, as has been suggested in this thread.
Thanks for all the info!


----------

