[Careyn]

Well, I agree with all that in principle... I certainly think that those principles apply in general and to other threads... Maybe I'm just forgetting the good parts of this thread.

See, here's the difference between you and me: I don't see everything in black and white. I don't see the world as a conspiracy designed to fool me. I've lived a lot of life, seen a lot of stuff. Life is exceedingly complex. Truth is hard to pin down and always looks different from different perspectives.

But perspectives can be right or wrong and that is why we argue.
Otherwise values do not exist. Neither do principles blue. And everybody is right all the time.

If we want to prove anything, first we must define tems. I'd start with suck...

That is one of those rather ill-defined terms of art for which the IEEE has no criteria or standards, and, as far as I know, there's not even a discussion group on it...

Word has it that in the days of early Jazz if a musician couldn't play the horn very well they would say that he was "Sucking" on that horn. That's where the term "Suck" as being something bad came from.

Next.

There is some truth in what you say: digital audio is in its infancy and yes, what's new today is outdated next year vs its analog gear counterparts. And yes, at some point digital has to be converted back to analog for us to hear it. But analog is not perfect either.

Nothing is perfect. But I will take somebodys honest effort into building a piece of gear that gives my real tangible value over some digi-companys air for money anyway of the week. But thats me. If you like throwing your money down the drain keep buying digital.

What have we learned here?

That there is a wide variety of opinions on a number of aspects of audio production when it comes to digital vs analog solutions to the same problems and that some people are articulate about expressing their reasons, but that others repeat a suspiciously similar litany of cliches as though they were talking points from a political action committee. (And that those types exist in all opinion camps.)

Stringing together polispeak words ain't gonna cut it this time. So I must say you really have no answer for me and your claims are without merit. I'm not convinced. Either bring a valid argument to the table about why I should choose to buy digi-gear and invest my hard earned money into putting some rich fatcats kids through college over gear that gives me actual tangible components or shut up already.

You made sweepingly broad, absolutist pronunciations that essemtially implied that folks, some or even many of whom probably have more and deeper experience in both the analog and digital worlds, don't know what they're doing and that they're a bunch of sheep.

Damn right I am an absolutist. And under your relativism you have to respect my position but under my absolutism I don't have to respect yours. I can dismiss it as wrong and misleading.

It's such a useless discussion. People are willing to rip someone apart because they like something. Be constructive, not destructive. Tell why you like analog or digital, not why someone is a looser because he likes something.

I guess I am not the only person to misspell the word lose but on a more serious note analog is better because it costs more money to produce and customers get a lot more tangible value for their money. This is the point I am stressing. I have yet to hear a valid argument from the opposing members.

We've learned -- as though we'd forgotten -- that some folks don't like to be called dupes, fools and liars for making the choices that they've made (whatever they are), particularly when they fit into the group above that has logically consistent rationales for their choices and can explain them.

If you're wrong, you're wrong. That's not my fault. Don't all worked up because I called you out on your lies.

I mixed a record entierly in the box and it went gold single gold album and double platinum compilation, you are right .....digital SUCKS !!??.... (for the record I have a large format console too so I know what I'm talking about) it's not the tools it's the Engineer!
PS: I also produced that record only with soft synths...

And

ust remember this: Your audience does not care a single, shrivelled fig about what gear you use, as long as the music sounds professionally produced and grooves nicely in the right places—and THAT is about the skills of the engineer. NOBODY is going care whether you use a real minimoog or a software emulation, or whether you use an analog mixing console or not. It's not the gear that counts, it's what you do with it.

This is a valid point and I agree with it but it is completely and totally irrelevent. I want to see what the schematics on a piece of gear look like, what it's main components are, how much do they cost and how it has come to dominate the recording industry.
In other words: Show me the money. Show me how much money they put in the shiny box on the front page add. Because at the moment all you've told me is that despite the fact that all your money is not going towards actual components but rather towards building profit and more hype for the company this technology has worked for some people. Sure. But it doesn't make it better.
At the most, it's just bad gear. A cheap knock off of the real thing that worked in cases where compromises had to be made.

Other arguments presented to me:

-There have been pop tracks produced with digi-gear.

-It is recalable and easy.

-I like it.

The OP seems to be thinking that the gear does wonders on a mix but I am still thinking that an old dog can teach me new tricks even with plug ins.

Again for for **** sake we are not arguing about whether or not the plug-ins can be used in a mix but rather we are arguing why should we choose these ridiculously expensive digi-gear that cost absolute shit to produce over real tangible component gear that does the same thing and gives us real tangible value for our money. I have YET to hear a valid argument on this.

Hey, it's all good, Careyn. I'm all for you buying all that stuff and I'd certainly love to have a few of the pieces I've played with along the way -- I kick myself hard every time I think of the Mini-Moogs I could have bought for $300-$500. I mean, that makes me want to cry... drifting oscillators, leaky caps and all... (And one of my buddies did just that, buying and selling 'old' analog [and 'vintage' digital, even] synths, brokering, and trading, all through the late 80s and into the mid 90s. He kept himself alive buying dirt cheap and selling at increasingly higher prices. He was certainly someone helping drive the cost of such vintage gear up. Like a real estate agent flipping houses. )

It is not your friend or the people that do that type of trading that are driving the price up. I say that's bullsh!t. This can be attributed to a backlash against the business model the keyboard companies are following these days... you know... cheap and by the thousands. A business model that relies on the grunge effect to stay alive. And the misinformation of untrustworthy and uncouth people like yourself. And like the pyramid scheme it really is, it relies on new customers to stay alive. Because after the first few digital synths and softsynths you purchase you learn to take these glowing reviews with a grain of salt.
In short this is happening because most of the gear today has no sustenance, it is cheap, shallow, and gimmicky, and people are drifting away from it because each subsequent purchase is not giving them the sound they are after. So they hunt down the originals. The minimoogs, the junos, the jupiters, the 2600s. The real s**t.
Gear that was made by people who had a much wider appreciation for synthesis and the music industry in general and you're doing them a disservice by suggesting that some cheap digi-knock off offers us better value.
drifting oscillators, leaky caps?
As opposed to what Blue? No oscillators and no capacitors at all?
Just money for air? Software in a box?

Well blue, your friend is not to blame for this. The real problem is the fact that these emulations have the same problem you have! They lie to themselves and to others.
It is like the companies these days are trying to outdo each other at who will make the cheapest gear possible and sell it for the maximum amount of money!
That's how digital gear, which was already pretty ridiculous in its pretense (''analog modeling'').... has morphed into software gear, which gradually took the pretense to higher and higher levels of stupidity where keyboards don't make any sound at all (the lucrative midi controller market).

Like the black comedy idiocracy were Joe, the leading character,wakes up from a 500 year coma and learns that water has been replaced by "Brawndo: The Thirst Mutilator", an energy drink advertised as rich in electrolytes that has bought off the FDA and is now being used for virtually every purpose, including crop irrigation. Water is only used in toilets. Over time, the electrolytes in the Brawndo have accumulated in the soil, killing the crops and causing the food shortage. After several failed attempts to explain to the cabinet members the importance of water in irrigation, Joe instead convinces them that he can talk to plants, and promises that if they use water on the crops, it will end both the food shortage and dust bowls.

And this is exactly were we are right now.
There's a point where you just have to step back and go "you know what? This shit isn't working anymore. It's just ****ing cheap and stupid. And go back to the real gear.