Quote:
Originally Posted by retractablezing  i'm not personally attacking you, i'm stating the obvious.
if you don't like the sound of the format, why did you post at all? the op is clearly after a more interesting sound than what digital or what have you has to offer, is your only contribution to that to say a 688 (what you thought a 388 was) is a crappy recorder? that's why i'm asking: why bother at all? especially when the topic was about maintainence.
if you have indeed used a 688, then i very much doubt you knew what you were doing recording to it. if you can't take an interesting sound out of it, then..i dunno. whatever your opinion might be of it, it's certainly not a crappy recorder - and that's what you said. |
You're not stating the obvious - and you're not reading my post either. I've already mentioned why I posted.
Obviously I don't know what I'm doing. I never have. I've never worked on any records on any analogue formats at all.
How well does sarcasm come across online?
I wouldn't deny you can get an "interesting" sound out of it. There's lots of crap you can get an interesting sound out of - that's not the point.
I THINK it's a crappy recorder - mainly because I think the format is crappy. But I'm actually entitled to think that!
Anyway - we're seriously derailing the thread here, I'm sure no-one else is bothered by this. If you really want to carry this on, again I'd request the PM route.
This is my last post on the subject.