Are digital recordings better than the Reel to Reel recording ?

Question

Are digital recordings better than the Reel to Reel recording ?

Answer 1

No.  Analog recordings are typically higher quality.  However, if you copy an analog recording, each copy of a copy of a copy degrades in quality.  However, digital recordings, when copied, are exact copies (same quality).

Having said all that, you can make some pretty high quality digital recordings, and most people can't percieve the difference in quality.

Plus, reel to reel tapes litterlly have glue sprayed onto them and magnetic particles sprinkled in the glue.  The glue looses effectiveness over time and the magnetic particles fall off the tape.  The more the tape is flexed (played) the more "fall off" that will occur.  On the other hand, if you never spin the tape, magnetic particles on one layer may actually change the polarity on the next layer of tape (so called "bleed through").  The point being, over time, magnetic media (tape) recordings will degrade.  Digital media is much less succeptable to degrading (though contrary to popular belief, it does degrade over time, but you can copy it off, an exact copy, before it degrades, thus effectively retaining the quality for forever

The "hiss" sir readsalot speaks of occurs in garden vareity cassette type tape.  Studio quality tapes (master) tapes don't suffer nearly as much from "hiss".

Answer 2

A lot of people try to recapture the "mojo" of a bygone recording sound by using old reel to reels (White Stripes, for one) for recording. Personally, since the industry has given them up, and the technology is flawed, it wouldn't be a good idea to head down that way. The cost of a single reel would be about the same as a sale price on one of the base-level digital audio ports from M-audio, and you'll get WAY more use out of it. If you're looking for that warm greasy recording sound, try getting yourself a tube preamp from someone like ART. I got one for 30 bucks. After that, there's about a billion VST effects that simulate poor recording conditions, tube amp emulations, room reverbs, tape echo....the list goes on and on.

Answer 3

I didn't know anyone used reel to reel any more. digital is so much better because you can record every track individually and see it ona computer screen. Then you can work on it, change things, manipulate it, cut and paste areas, add loops  etc. You have so much more control.

Tape is out of date.

Answer 4

I'min recording day in and day out. The RCA studio have both andthe reel to reel has more bass, more warmth than digital and I would like anybody to contradict or prove me otherwise.

These little home based studio are nothing compared to RCA or Sony where I record.

But personally, I love the ease of Digital and no need to buy tapes etc....

Plus , they have timecode built in ....

Briefly, the Reel to Reel is more natural and to prove it, take an old vinyl and take the same on on the best CD if you want . You will notice the difference on the low ends. The sound is way more natural and digital, even in photography, is no way close to films.  Far from it !!!!

Answer 5

I actually HAD an early multi-track Ampex 350-4 and it was the workhorse of it's day... state of the art and very expensive to buy and maintain... but it didn't have TIME CODE and that is something even the cheapest digitals recorders have today.. and TIME CODE is the real time saver for editing.

The early digital recorders used a low sampling rate, but he movern ones are so over sampled that they approach analog recordings for dynamic range.

DIGITAL... over RtR... definitely

Answer 6

Yes. Digital recordings don't degrade over time and they don't have tape hiss.