[theblue1]

Originally Posted by Careyn

A crucially important fact is the fact that 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.

This is a fact.

If you want to talk resale value, OK.

But if you are saying that analog gear has more real value to me than virtualized tools that attempt to do the same job simply by virtue of the fact that physical raw materials and not just labor went into it -- no, that does not make any sense to me.

As I previously noted, I use some analog gear because it works better for me in the uses I put it to -- but other, virutalized tools I also use for the simple reason that they work best for me in current circumstances. I buy tools to do work. The tool that works best for me in a given circumstance is the tool with the best tangible* value to me.

[*Dictionary.com: "2. real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary: the tangible benefits of sunshine."]

Whether it works for somebody or not or whether it works for a task or not is is an opinion.

This doesn't change the fact that from a production standpoint the digital gear is inferior.
To me to you to everybody. Why? Because there is less money for you and bigger profit for them in the digital box.

Sorry, you're trying to tell me what is valuable to me, again.

Face it, that's just going to be an uphill battle.

And -- again -- if hardware worked better for me, I would be using much more of the room full of hardware I already have. I could, time-based FX aside, set up an entire, small, all analog 4 track project studio out of what I already own and have right here (complete with analog synthesis). And if I felt like going cross town to haul back my old 8 track 1/2" that I gave to my buddy and which has served as window dressing in his PT room for the last 5 years, I could have some big if not necessarily powerful or elegant iron.

No, I use what I use because it works for me. It has value to me.

But, I'm not sure why you keep going on about costs -- mine are minimal at this point: I run a refurbed P4 box that cost me $404 3 years ago (incl tax & shipping), a few extra HDDs, another GB of RAM, a decent monitor, DAW software I bought in 1997 and upgraded sometimes and skipped upgrades on sometimes, and plugs and VIs that either came with the DAW upgrades or shareware/freeware.

(It's also the machine I use for my dayjob. As well as for editing video.)

Hiring children for 20 cents a day at sweatshops in the third world to build their cheap digital shit while most of the money goes to the pockets of big corporate fat cats and media fails to inspire any ****ing sympathy to me.
And telling me that they don't get down like that is an insult to my intelligence.
I was not born yesterday.

This BTW is not exclusive to the digital gear or gear in general but most of the good analog gear is made by idealistic people who are not afraid to give us a little bit of value for our dollar and are not treating us a commodities whos purpose is to consume. It is made by people with a long term vision and is made with respect for our money and out studios.

Sweatshops are bad and I do what I can to avoid products that are made in them.

I don't wear designer sweat shop clothes. I try to buy local. In the 90s, most of the hardware I bought -- more than a bit of it digital, since I moved to an ADAT studio when they first came out around the start of '93 -- was made in the good ol' USA -- although the origin of electronic parts, I know, having worked for a small US electronics manufacturer, myself, is often suspect. Certainly, one can somewhat avoid that if he's got the kind of money required to buy gear made with wildly expensive, boutique components.

That said, the maker of my current two computers (I also have a laptop for business), Dell, has actively campained against sweat shops, as noted in this BusinessWeek article on sweat shops.

And, not only is my gear footprint low, with one ~6 year old laptop and one 3 year old, $400 computer, which support not just my vocation, but my avocation (recording, which I am still very active in, though I no longer take clients; my podcasts alone have been DL'd over 300K times; that's potentially pretty good reach for music made on a $400 computer, huh?) as well as my entertainment (my computer is my entertainment center, such as it is), my total carbon footprint is very low, addionally -- since in addition to virtualized tools -- my commute is also vitrualized.


Look, I get the sense that you are not enjoying this dialog. Obviously, people are breaking into it -- from the moan zone -- to comment that it sucks. It's pretty much down to you and me.

My only 'goal' here is to disabuse anyone of the idea that I am either a shill or a dupe, beyond that, I have no agenda.

But, since you're pretty much the only one left -- and I'm pretty convinced that arguing with you any further is a fool's errand, even with my limited goal in mind, I'm going to bow out of this thread and allow you to potentially have the last word.

Go for it...