I’m into music recording, and apart from the equipment overlap, I don’t really know anything about film production. But in the recording world, recording onto analogue tape is “the ultimate” - the most desirable sound and process for recording music. It’s also the most difficult and expensive method, which is largely why digital recording and editing has replaced it for most users. I know that the film world has gone the same digital route - even people shooting on traditional film still dump everything into computers for editing.
Knowing that film cameras do not record audio, and that the audio process is an entirely separate process when it comes to film (hence the recorded “clap” of the board at the beginning of each scene for synchronization), I assume that most audio is recorded digitally when it comes to film. I also assume that most of the voiceover or “looping” work done is recorded digitally.
But here’s the Q - are there any “purist” directors out there that insist on recording onto analog tape “in the field,” and also for overdubbing or looping work? Is there anyone “keeping it real” and using this process in the name of “purity” or “doing it like they used to?”
My first question would be, it it really “the ultimate” Can someone really tell a digital from an analog recording recorded with the same microphones and played back over the same speakers?
IANA sound engineer but from alot of the things I have heard, much of the hype on analog recording/video is trying to sell older technology at a markup or isolate amateur users by pricing them out of the market or claiming they lack adequate equipment therefor come to company X.
I also question the ‘tape as the ultimate medium’ mindset.
As a listener, you will not be able to tell the difference between a well engineered digital recording and a well engineered tape recording (and, to be clear, a digital format can be and is recorded onto tape; tape does not equal analog).
And, even if there were a noticable difference (which, IMO, would be more an artifact of the engineering than the medium), I can think of very few situations where the artifacts of analog audio recording would be desirable for a film. Plus, you can always add that tape hiss back in digitally if you want.
Well, hey, we can argue “analog vs. digital” all day long; it’s one of the oldest arguments among recording nerds and is one that will never be settled. We should really start another thread if we’re going to do that, though. I’m more curious to see if anyone in the film world practices analogue tape recording, esp. for “purist” reasons.
(my .02 - there’s definitely an audible difference between analogue and digital recording, but it’s not as noticeable as the difference between, say, digital video and film because the ear is far easier to trick than the eye. Digital is defintiely the cleaner or more accurate of the two, but Analogue’s “warmth” (mild ear-pleasing distortion and minute nonlinearities) tends to sound more pleasing to listeners).
