Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1  No, actually, you didn't.
Not only that, you attributed to me a number of positions and conclusions of which even a moderately careful reading of my posts would disabuse any clear-headed thinker.
Now, I have no interest in persuading you to see or do things my way -- in the slightest -- but I am concerned about your many extremely dubious, often misleading and sometimes just downright boneheaded public statements -- because they may confuse impressionable newbs. |
Any clearheaded thinker would agree that you have difficulty answering the million dollar question of why should we choose expensive digital equipment that costs absolut **** to produce over analog equipment that is expensive to produce and gives us real tangible value for our money. You can't answer this so you hide behind intellectually haunting language. And it is not working.
Quote:
I'm not sure what your experience base is.
I, myself, grew up with (analog) tape recorders, a love affair that began when I was under 5; I did my first 'serious' overdub project when I was 14; in the early 1980s, I went through two commercial music/recording programs and worked on many score projects from classical to jazz to punk to advertising in analog tape studios. I've owned 10 analog reel tape recorders, five of them multi-tracks. (I stopped counting the number of cassette decks I'd owned when it topped 25.)
While I was still in school, I began my continuing involvement with electronic synthesis, initially learning to patch synths on a Moog Model 15 modular synth where you used real patch cords to connect modules (similar to the system used by Wendy Carlos on her seminal Switched on Bach album from the late 60s [when Wendy was still Walter]). I learned to sequence on pre-MIDI voltage controlled sequencers.
Like I said, I don't know what your experience base is, but I really don't need you to tell me anything.
Even if you could.
|
You are constantly trying to turn this into a me vs you debate but the fact of the matter is...
Here we go again...
Once again in big bold letters so people can see how you are not responding to this:
analog gear offers more tangible value to potential musicians and studio owners than digital because the raw material resources that make the analog product what it is are of greater monetary value that those of digital and software gear
My experience and your experience has absolutely nothing to do with this and doesn't change a god damn thing!
The truth is this argument is not is not in any way shape of form related to my or your personal qualities as an engineer and my or your personal experience.
When I ask you why should a potential buyer choose expensive digi gear that offers less tangible value in components than analog gear that costs real money to make you say:
''You have no experience.''
When I ask you why should a potential buyer choose expensive digital gear that offers less tangible value in components than analog gear that costs real money to make you say:
'' Digital gear has worked for some people''
When I ask you why should a potential buyer choose expensive digital gear that offers less tangible value in components than analog gear that costs real money to make you say:
''I used to work analog. I have more experience. I used to do this I used to do that''
All Absolutely irrelevant.
Will you stop blowing smoke up my ass with ''my experience'' and ''your experience'' and the rest of the bull and answer the question.
Do you think expensive digital equipment that costs absolutely **** to make represents greater monetary value in components than expensive analog gear that is costly to produce?