Talk about the digital vs. analog controversy
Talk about the digital vs. analog controversy
It’s less and less of a deal as old analog-only guys die out or – pardon the pun – convert.
Humans are analog beings. Sound is analog, and our ears are analog. On top of that, we’ve grown accustomed over decades to the coloration that analog recording equipment adds to music. A lot of it is pleasing harmonic distortion. People describe it in different ways, but you hear “warmer” a lot. And I usually prefer the sound of voices and instruments that have passed through analog equipment, often with tubes, and even sometimes analog tape. That’s why we have the Studer and all the analog outboard gear. However, digital is far more accurate in capturing what the artists actually did. Our Burl converters do not change the sound in a scientifically measurable way. And digital files are an order of magnitude more durable and flexible than analog tape. Don’t get me started on vinyl.
Yes, plugins in NLEs can help make bad performances acceptable, and NLEs let people make records on a laptop in their bedroom, which helped put some great studios out of business (watch that documentary about Sound City). But those aren’t reasons not to use digital in an intelligent way to get a better product. The flexibility of Pro Tools on the S6 lets you accomplish so much more, faster and more accurately, to capture and manipulate musical performances. And you can get the analog color you want from preamps and other outboard gear, but today analog-modeling plugins do the same job.
