Mixing - Analogue Vs Digital

Discussion in 'Tracking / Mixing / Editing' started by HowardH, Jun 3, 2011.

  1. HowardH

    HowardH Active Member

    Hey guys,
    Thanks for reading my thread.

    My first thread on my first day in Recording.Org so if i screw something up then please do not shoot my dog.

    I am curious, ppl keep going on about Analogue mixers, saying that the sound quality is not good and blah blah compared to digital mixers.

    But i just don't get this as the best music ever was recorded on Analogue systems, The Beatles could have only wished to have something as humble (these days) as say the Yamaha MG16/6FX to do Sgt Peppers on, let alone the plethora of stuff we have these days.

    But even many great bands of the nineties, ANALOGUE.

    So can someone please tell me what i am missing here? Because for the life of me i cannot understand why we ALL can't do brillient albums on the cheapest of stuff, if we have talent, good ideas, good listening ears, and patients.

    Cheers
     
  2. hueseph

    hueseph Well-Known Member

    While analog has a lot of mojo and you can really get some nice warmth out of an analog mixer, the one thing that digital surpasses in is noise floor. Digital consoles are quieter and cleaner. Which some people may equate to more sterile. The thing about those boutique mixing desks is that they were made to very high standards. Digital mixers don't "need" to be made to as high a standard anymore. Of course the better the digital mixer, the longer it will last and likely the better it will sound. There are certainly benefits to both. I think there are plenty enough people who would much rather use an analog desk than a digital one.

    Digital desks are a thing of convenience. Unfortunately many "engineers" these days are getting lazy. They expect a nice clean signal every time. And, if they don't get it right going in, they figure they can fix it in the mix. It's pure laziness. They don't know what it means to spend time getting the sound right before it goes to tape.

    There was a thread here some time ago about the extra five percent and is it worth it to strive for that. Most people who have any decent amount of skill can get a good session going and a decent mix within a few hours. If an old school guy walks in and spends an entire day working on the drums and then the rest of the week getting the guitars bass and vocals to sound right all in the same room, the young guys will scratch their heads. But when they hear the resulting mix at the end of the week, just watch their eyes pop open. That's when it clicks. The sudden realization that a little effort will take a session from good enough to amazing.

    I have my little setup here but it will never satisfy me. It's just not right. When you have a good desk and tape and you've practiced for months to make sure the take goes quickly, there is no replacement for that. No amount of digital "fixing" could possibly make it sound better than a well planned, well recorded session on high quality gear.
     
  3. HowardH

    HowardH Active Member

    Hey

    quote - They expect a nice clean signal every time. And, if they don't get it right going in, they figure they can fix it in the mix. It's pure laziness. They don't know what it means to spend time getting the sound right before it goes to tape.

    I totally agree with you hueseph, personally, when i am listening to music i like, mostly i am driving, around the house, or outside.

    For the fraction of a percent of the time that i could be sitting there with million dollar speakers or headphones and waiting to hear the left back symbol's hairline fracture, i think i could suffer the imperfections of mixes.

    To me the music comes first unless it is mixed by idiots.
     

Share This Page