Originally Posted by Bassmankr
Again if you can not hear a difference between the two types of sound fields (3D or Flat) described by those jargon words you are in the wrong field.
I am pretty sure I am in the right field, but thanks for your concern. It is not about hearing the differences. It is about assuming
those differences come from the machine.
It's not the jargon word itself that is bullshit. It's the abuse of the jargon - whereby people use it
to validate their subjective opinions - that
I find to be bullshit.
In my personal experience Digital's weakness is lack of 3D.
And here is where you make a staggeringly huge leap in logic that demands
you now specify exactly how
'Depth' is not captured by a microphone, therefore the recording medium must be irrelevant. Set up one mic and record one track and you are saying all by itself, this one track will have more "depth"?
Relative to what other tracks? Ridiculous. If you are going to present your subjective opinions as "facts", then you DO need to be prepared to back them up to however many decimal places!
I say depth is put in there by the engineer. Careful placement of two
mics. Careful mixing
techniques. You have left the jargon behind
and plunged into your own world of subjectivity. You don't 'own' the expression "3D" and have no hard evidence
to back up your claim that one medium naturally has more
of it than another. Just your "impression".
You are trying to redefine
"3D" as: "that which digital does not have". That's what I am calling bullshit. Like "warmth"
, the word has lost its meaning because of people like you.
Maybe you are trying to say you
have an easier time MIXING on analog? Well, good for you
! Try to keep in mind that what's good for you
does not define the medium
or even the jargon word.
Advertising even confirms this as with most advertising it is common practice to concentrate on a product's weakness to minimize it.
I get it: don't blindly believe the ads, blindly believe the opposite
of the ads!