[aeonsound]

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.

really? i don't think it is. where's the evidence?

1) how do you measure 'tangible value' in terms of 'raw material resources'?

2) where is the evidence that the 'raw material resources' in piece of gear is what gives it value?

you seem to be quite happy demanding other posters list components of individual gear. since you beat everyone over the head with your size-48 'fact', i reckon it's only fair you give us the same respect.

so please, explain how the 'raw material resources' in an RME Fireface have less 'tangible value' than those in a PreSonus EQ3B. or alternatively, any one of a hundred distinctly average budget pieces of analog gear.

When I buy a piece of gear the first thing I ask my self is how much money did the company spend to produce this. I am not talking about research. I am simply talking about components. The purchasing decision is based strictly on that.

that's very strange. you mean if you had to choose which mic preamp you wanted, the first and only purchasing criteria would be how much you imagine the company spent on components? how do you reach such a figure - do you open up the box and count the capacitors, deduct a little for wholesale pricebreaks, factor in a rough estimate for housing, and add a few dollars for a ham sandwich the designer bought themselves for lunch on day 4 of the project?

i can't honestly imagine using design cost criteria to decide something as subjective as audio gear. maybe it's just me, but when i'm buying gear a big part of the decision is based on what i like the sound of.