Just curious as to why still analog??

[regebro]

Ifail to see how that test is relevant for the discussion on wording. The word we are looking for is "accurate". Digital recording is more accurate than analog.

 

[Beck]

Yes, but when we "bash digital" we in essence bash the people that hold it in high regard. We cannot seperate the two.

~Daniel

That is a tough one. I've thought about that a lot because I know people have invested heavily in the technology in the home recording community. Yet we should have the freedom to express dissatisfaction with digital if we are not pleased with it. Otherwise there is no way to make an honest recommendation.

There are some who are much too sensitive though. Like the driver who thinks you are making a statement on the speed he has chosen to drive just because you are passing him. The truth is you just want to get to your destination on time. He is convinced it’s all about him and there is nothing you can do to change his mind.

What to do?

 

[planetorange]

Analog versus digital

This is an old and ridiculous debate. And its even old and ridiculous to say that it is an old debate, because everybody knows. Heres the real deal... I have listened to the shtiest sounding records and recordings over and over in my youth just to feel the music. I didnt care about noise and i didnt care about it not being crystal clear. Im sure when people were gathered around radios (before tv) they didnt bitch about how uncrisp and squeaky clean it sounds. They were amazed. The point of it all is to feel the music. I can say that i have liked albums that were done digitally. But it was because of the music on it. The music was what i NEED music to be and what good music has always been... SINCERE performance of an emotional expression. While digital recording of music sounds sterile (or lacking character) sometimes compared to analog, i think a good honest album can be made on digital. But people who spend their whole lives trying to chase the technology edge and are always nitpicking the noise are beginning the process of creation in the realm of human stupidity and they are giving in to the pressure of societys BS. Imagine one day a caveman comes out of the cave and catches a fish on his stick. Hes the pride of the caveman village and all the cavegirls think hes the alpha. The next day he comes out and some a hole has a two pronged stick. Well now hes behind and if he wants to catch up hell have to get a 3 pronged stick to keep himself attractive to the cavegirls. Well i think its all just garbage and no real artist or musician would care to be at the cutting edge of technology. Be at the cutting edge of your own lifes work and your ability to be sincere in songwriting. Not successfull. Dont try to impress your fellow man with your fidelity. Fidelity can be bought. And people like me will always see you as an artistic hoax. You might fool the idiots but their fooled by anything. Do you want to be remembered for your fidelity? There are too many average joes who get to be "artists" these days. Basically just dudes trying to "make it" in the world of recording and music but they dont really truly care about what music is about. Id dont care if you get paid a million dollars for your thoughts and techniques of recording. I dont care if you are known in the business. Being part of the business at all is being part of the problem to me. If you cant write a great honest song you are NOTHING to me in the creative world. And i can, whether you care or not, see right through you. Is there a plug-in that simulates true, sincere creativity? I have a friend who likes everything to be digital and clean. He likes to be able to do 500 takes just to get it right. But to me, if it takes that much to get you to sound like you can write and arrange and play you need to go donate your time to some relief effort or something useful because you are wasting all our time. Being able to play well and not need everything squeaky clean and synced is part of what makes you a "talent". Ok ill sum this up. I have a decent amount of friends who like music and play music. All the them who listen to music for the "rocknroll coolness" factor, who have no idea what music is about, and just see it as something to show off or gain respect from women prefer digital recordings and cutting edge technology. All of them who truly get what music is about and like all kinds of music from all kinds of sources of inspiration hate digital and love analog. Records on vinyl even. So i know those are just people that i know and everyone is different, but try to take that for what it is. Because i think thats interesting. Please dont be angry at what im saying. I just feel it down to my very core that its all in the song and not in the fidelity and technology. Am i an ashole or idiot for asking people over an internet forum to trust me that i can FEEL that chasing technology is a losers game? Now you can all make fun of me and overanalyze every particular word i used so that i look stupid. But really im on all your sides, but i say free yourself from your own minds cage. We all look back at the geniuses of music from the old days and it seems like they did it all and made it all the best it could be. Do we want to be remembered for just talking about how great its going to be once we all put our families in the pawn shop just to get some piece of NEW equipment that takes out every human error and natural anomaly from our recordings? Cause thats all i see.

 

[evm1024]

SO Digital is not accurate, it is just more accurate than analog

Ifail to see how that test is relevant for the discussion on wording. The word we are looking for is "accurate". Digital recording is more accurate than analog.

OK I think we have dispelled the myth that digital is accurate. Either do the test or lets get back to the discussion of what inaccuracies in digital and analog exist and how people respond to them. And why the analog inaccuries appear to be more "listenable".

Regards.

PS OF course we could do a side by side. Dirst the digital mixer then the analog mixer and then see what comes out of the speaker!

 

[SteveMac]

I guess my perception remains the same. High end digital can be quite good. Analog rocks from top to bottom. (well sorta) .

Maybe another thing we can agree on is, before buying low end digital consider the alternative.

An a-b comparison of my tascam 38 to the roland 1880 digital workstation made the roland sound very paper thin and brittle. The Roland did sound clearer and crisper but I don't ever remember actual instruments sounding brittle while played live so I would have to say there is a mis-representation of sound in those units.

 

[regebro]

OK I think we have dispelled the myth that digital is accurate.

I can't see that you have even tried.

Either do the test or lets get back to the discussion of what inaccuracies in digital and analog exist and how people respond to them. And why the analog inaccuries appear to be more "listenable".

This part of the discussion, however, is long finished.

PS OF course we could do a side by side. Dirst the digital mixer then the analog mixer and then see what comes out of the speaker!

Just propagating a signal without doing anything to it, like recording, is an easy task. Most likely the signals would in that case be pretty much identical. So, you go ahead and do this test. Be my guest.

 

[acorec]

Whats is your point, and why did you direct this post to me?

I got the wrog quote! I was talking to beck.

 

[monty]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

...noooooooooohhhhhh......

 

[Beck]

Ok, thought about it... I give up. So what's the answer? QUOTE]

I am mildly dissapointed in you. I absoultely respect you as your disscussions are coherent and to the point without insulting members.

But, almost all commercial songs/albums these days (except Steve Albini) see digital conversion for editing and album assembly. The digital mixes are the ones that end up as the released product. I did get an answer from Steve today and he agrees that he is about the only professional producer that trys to get the full performance at all costs because he hates to go to DAW. He is an analog purist and stays with it. I can respect that totally. But, in my disscussions with him and other pro engineers, there is never insulting and telling people that analog is right and digital is wrong.

That is simply an argument that uninformed and uneducated people make as Steve Albini knows that there are some things that digital can do better than analog and he gives it credit. There is room for both and both get used in the pro world as tools. I use them both myself and don't get on anybody for their use of either. However, no one likes to be told they are idiots, stupid etc. and then ending with the statement that analog is better, period.

You were talking to Beck? That makes even less sense. That was a pretty sorry rant. You may feel stupid or like an idiot for some reason, but I didn’t say you were. Now in retrospect, concerning my short list of studios using analog, I think you were confronted with something you didn’t know and reacted very badly to it.

At best though you haven't been able to accurately follow my position, though I have clearly spelled it out. That may happen if you try to skim my posts rather than reading them. Some individuals also have difficulty separating the various opinions of several members with which they disagree, so they group them together as one voice.

At worst you have joined regebro, both now resorting to putting words in my mouth to discredit me as a messenger because the message is painful to you. That is a common tactic, especially in the cave (and in the world in general, politics, etc.) The hope is that readers will remember what you say I said rather than what I really said because your words are more recent and they may not bother to go over the thread to get the true message.

You will have to think about that and do a little explaining before I will be sure what your real motivation is behind the apparent – that is, if you even know yourself.

Whichever it is though, the fact remains that you have not correctly described my position on the issues, but have instead created a charicature of an “evil analog person” to argue with – AKA a straw man. Tricks and tactics like that do not foster open, genuine debate. They will quickly spiral into ugly personal exchanges, as we have seen time and time again.

BTW, to try to maintain some semblance of a debate with a goal to the truth, the “he-said-she-said arguments (Steve Albini said) are best backed with verifiable references. Otherwise we get into the whole Professor XYZ thing where everyone is talking to experts, dead people, angels, God, etc to settle a question.

Steve’s writings are all over the web and print. It would be helpful to cite the book, periodical or website whenever possible. I make it a personal practice to do so as I think it is the only way to keep the bullshit to a tolerable minimum.

Now as to that question of what Ablini may or may not have said or may or may not think. Your statement is like that of one who is outside looking in. You seem to be shamelessly unaware of the sheer depth and breadth of the analog revival in the industry.

However, as I’ve stated in this thread and in others ad nauseam:

MOST PROFESSIONALS THAT HAVE REINTRODUCED ANALOG USE A COMBINATION OF DIGITAL AND ANALOG.

In fact, I personally don’t know anyone using analog that does not know this. I’m certainly not the one who is unaware of this. You must have me confused with someone else. Possibly one of regebro’s straw men? Regular members of the analog forum have a more informed grasp of how technology is being used than in any other forum on homerecording.com. The ignorance of the “digital only” crowd is what gives threads like this life. It is that group that is screaming and spilling their popcorn and Pepsi all over themselves at the jump scenes during these discussions.

-Tim

 

[acorec]

You were talking to Beck? That makes even less sense. That was a pretty sorry rant. You may feel stupid or like an idiot for some reason, but I didn’t say you were. Now in retrospect, concerning my short list of studios using analog, I think you were confronted with something you didn’t know and reacted very badly to it.

At best though you haven't been able to accurately follow my position, though I have clearly spelled it out. That may happen if you try to skim my posts rather than reading them. Some individuals also have difficulty separating the various opinions of several members with which they disagree, so they group them together as one voice.

At worst you have joined regebro, both now resorting to putting words in my mouth to discredit me as a messenger because the message is painful to you. That is a common tactic, especially in the cave (and in the world in general, politics, etc.) The hope is that readers will remember what you say I said rather than what I really said because your words are more recent and they may not bother to go over the thread to get the true message.

You will have to think about that and do a little explaining before I will be sure what your real motivation is behind the apparent – that is, if you even know yourself.

Whichever it is though, the fact remains that you have not correctly described my position on the issues, but have instead created a charicature of an “evil analog person” to argue with – AKA a straw man. Tricks and tactics like that do not foster open, genuine debate. They will quickly spiral into ugly personal exchanges, as we have seen time and time again.

BTW, to try to maintain some semblance of a debate with a goal to the truth, the “he-said-she-said arguments (Steve Albini said) are best backed with verifiable references. Otherwise we get into the whole Professor XYZ thing where everyone is talking to experts, dead people, angels, God, etc to settle a question.

Steve’s writings are all over the web and print. It would be helpful to cite the book, periodical or website whenever possible. I make it a personal practice to do so as I think it is the only way to keep the bullshit to a tolerable minimum.

Now as to that question of what Ablini may or may not have said or may or may not think. Your statement is like that of one who is outside looking in. You seem to be shamelessly unaware of the sheer depth and breadth of the analog revival in the industry.

However, as I’ve stated in this thread and in others ad nauseam:

MOST PROFESSIONALS THAT HAVE REINTRODUCED ANALOG USE A COMBINATION OF DIGITAL AND ANALOG.

In fact, I personally don’t know anyone using analog that does not know this. I’m certainly not the one who is unaware of this. You must have me confused with someone else. Possibly one of regebro’s straw men? Regular members of the analog forum have a more informed grasp of how technology is being used than in any other forum on homerecording.com. The ignorance of the “digital only” crowd is what gives threads like this life. It is that group that is screaming and spilling their popcorn and Pepsi all over themselves at the jump scenes during these discussions.

-Tim

I did not say you called me anything. I am stating how these threads end up. I talked with Steve directly like I talk to Fletcher and a few dozen other engineers directly. My point is that the last stop for virtually all professional commercial relaesed recordings (other than CD) is the digital workstation for editing and album ordering. Therefore, the recordings that say "AAD" really are "ADD" even though they recorded the basic tracks on an analog machine. The studios use analog machines these days for the effect that they have on drums, bass and guitars. They can, and do, record all digital when the song demands it. There are even talanted engineers out there that do all digital recording and make it sound analog. Listen to these engineers digital recordings and you will see that the "digital bashing" is based on equipment made long ago. The "analog sound" has been what our generation (or anyone listening to pre-digital music) is used to. The new engineers will never see analog and rightly so. Analog is pretty much done in both pro and consumer markets. I guess according to all the analog only guys, when the last analog machine dies there should be no more music.


Lastly, all audio engineering schools have dumped their analog everything. They don't teach on anything but Pro-Tools and analog/digital consoles. So, digital is here to stay and it won't matter to you or anyone on here that refuses to embrace it. This discussion is meaningless as well. The world is digital and will stay that way. The engineering going on to make the digital systems sound more analog is under way in a fast and futile manner. These digital guys will catch up and make analog vs. digital a moot point period.


The future of analog will be (and currently is becoming) a buisiness of "boutique" studios that will offer analog recording for the "retro" artists and charge accordingly. Right now, if you look at the audio broker pages, you will see that the pro used machine market is totally glutted with used machines. These machines are going to home studio owners and some pros for parts/use. But there are way too many for sale with no buyers. Exactly the opposite with the consumer Tascams and the like. I will say that in a few years, a pro machine will be cheaper than a Tascam 16 track.

 

[regebro]

Now in retrospect, concerning my short list of studios using analog, I think you were confronted with something you didn’t know and reacted very badly to it.

And how are things going with Dulcinea?

Whichever it is though, the fact remains that you have not correctly described my position on the issues, but have instead created a charicature of an “evil analog person” to argue with – AKA a straw man.

No. YOU are doing that. You, and a couple of other people, like cjacek and A Reel Person, are constantly arguing against some sort of imaginary straw man that claims that digital is superiour in every way and using analog is a bad decision.

Claiming that nobody here takes the position that analog is superiour to digital in all ways, allways, is ridicolous. This is exactly the position both you, Cjacek and Dr Zee has taken. You also take the position of "if you are not with us you must be against us" and therefore make up this straw man of people who claims that digital is superiour to analog in all ways, all ways, and decide to argue against that.

That is the straw man, which you combine with loser psychologizations like the one in the first quote above.

Tricks and tactics like that do not foster open, genuine debate.

So, will you stop it?

MOST PROFESSIONALS THAT HAVE REINTRODUCED ANALOG USE A COMBINATION OF DIGITAL AND ANALOG.

Correct. And you claim you have stated this "Ad nauseam"? Bullshit. What you HAVE repeated ad nauseam is the statement that most top people prefer analog. Over, and over nmad over and over, and you have also at the same time ridiculed people who said good things about digital technology in the 80s.

If you have changed your mind recently, then be a man and admit it. But don't come claiming that you have said one thing all the time, when in fact, you all the time have said something completely different.

 

[evm1024]

I can't see that you have even tried.

This part of the discussion, however, is long finished.

Just propagating a signal without doing anything to it, like recording, is an easy task. Most likely the signals would in that case be pretty much identical. So, you go ahead and do this test. Be my guest.

You suppose that a digital mixer does not color the signal and say that testing is not required.

I will grant you that I did presume that a digital mixer will take the incoming signal, digitize it, do a little math on it and reconvert via D/A to line out. Thus the a/d-process-d/a in the mixer is what is under test. Are digital mixers really analog mixers?.....

Why would we need to write the data to disk (record) ? In the digital world once it is ones and zeros wether you buffer it in ram for a few hundreds of nS before D/a or store it on a disk (or dat or whatever) for 1 million years has no bearing on what is reproduced. Data is data.

This test was used quite effectivly by Bob Carver when he was challenged to make his transistor amps sound like tube amps. (was it) Steriophile mag conceded that the transfer function of the carver m-1.5t was the same at the tube amp he modeled (A mark levinson if I remember correctly). They did not like the results either.

So, If you will not do the test I will but as that I do not have a digital mixer someone will have to loan me one. Any takers?

 

[regebro]

You suppose that a digital mixer does not color the signal and say that testing is not required.

No, I do not "suppose". I am convinced, through the knowledge and experince and general insight I have, that high-end digital reproduction colours the signal much less than the corresponding analog reproduction does.

When it comes to something so relatively simple as just propagating a signal from A to B, the difference will be very small. So in the mixer case, you will see a very small difference between an analog and a digital mixer.

When it comes to recording, the difference will be big, and digital will without any doubt whatsoever win that competition outright. There is no contest.

I will grant you that I did presume that a digital mixer will take the incoming signal, digitize it, do a little math on it and reconvert via D/A to line out. Thus the a/d-process-d/a in the mixer is what is under test.

Exactly.

And since the math is trivial, what you are testing is the a/d-d/a convertions.
While in an analog mixer you are testing a couple of amplifiers, the one most likely to color the signal being the summing amplifier.

Are digital mixers really analog mixers?.....

No. Why do you ask?

Why would we need to write the data to disk (record) ? In the digital world once it is ones and zeros wether you buffer it in ram for a few hundreds of nS before D/a or store it on a disk (or dat or whatever) for 1 million years has no bearing on what is reproduced. Data is data.

In the digital world, yes. Which is why for digital is makes no diffierence if you record it or not. But for analog, it makes a HUGE difference.

Therefore, if you want to make a USEFUL test, test a analog tape machine with a high-end 24/96 digital recorder.

 

[evm1024]

The assertion was that digital is accurate (line in = line out)

This is not an Analog vs Digital debate. The assertion made (by you?) was that Digital is accurate. I stated the precise would be a better word.

The original question was " Just curious as to why still analog??" the answer given by the analog crowd as that "there is something about digital that makes it sound less desirable than analog" (to paraphrase) in a whole lot of colorful words.

So the debate centers not on that analog recording colors (which we all know) but rather the color of analog is more pleasant on humans than digital color.

Doing the transfer function test on a digital mixer is not to show that digital is this that or the other as compaired to analog but rather to see if there are some specific moments where the accuracy of digital goes to hell. We don't want to measure steady state conditions but rather the full responsiveness of the system under test. We may find that digital handles it all in stride or we may find that under specific conditions digital cannot mantain it accuracy in a jarring way.

The whole thought of putting an analog system in was as a control. The inherient delay in analog playback makes this test for a tape deck very diffucult. (But I am willing to try)

So I do see the disconnect in out point of view. Do you see what I am after? How soon can I expect to see that digital mixer in the mail? That way we can put to rest the turth or falseness to digital "color".

Regards

PS Sure the math is trivial when we are only adjusting amplitude but once you start putting any EQ in the math gets quite complex. Any search on FFT will illistrate this.

 

[Tim Walker]

Holy shit I didn't mean to start such a fuss! (not like it hasn't been discussed before)

But it makes for interesting reading, and I'm learning a lot!

tim

 

[regebro]

The assertion was that digital is accurate (line in = line out)

Exactly.

This is not an Analog vs Digital debate.

you could have fooled me.

The assertion made (by you?) was that Digital is accurate.

More so than analog yes.

I stated the precise would be a better word.

And you are still wrong. It is now well established that the word is "accurate". Can we drop that question now?

Doing the transfer function test on a digital mixer is not to show that digital is this that or the other as compaired to analog but rather to see if there are some specific moments where the accuracy of digital goes to hell.

"Accurate" is a relative word. You must compare it with something.

Do you see what I am after?

No. I have the feeling (but I'm not sure) that your view is so full of misconceptions about this issue that we tend to talk over each others heads.

How soon can I expect to see that digital mixer in the mail?

Why are you asking me?

PS Sure the math is trivial when we are only adjusting amplitude but once you start putting any EQ in the math gets quite complex. Any search on FFT will illistrate this.

well, DUH! But as you mentioned this is a question of digital as a technology, not digital filters. if you start tweaking with filters and compare the unfiltered signal with the filtered, of course you are gonna see a huge difference. That's pretty evident?

You seem to not make a point. was that intentional?

 

[evm1024]

I've enjoyed the conversation

Tim,

I've enjoyed the conversation and learned a lot (as a newby to the list) about the list personalities.

This thread is very interesting to me in the sense that I once was on the semiconductor side of the tube/semiconductor debate. I was very vested in how pure transistors sounded and had my nose rubbed in it. Now I'm not so high up.

I did design and build a digitial recorder back when cd's were first coming out. I only had 12 bit d/a and a/d and a (by todays standards) slow computer. It was a lot of fun and allowed me to get my hands wet in real world digital filtering.

It taught me many things about discrete sampling vs continuious spectrum. Hey, I thought 12 bits gives a dynamic range of 72 dB, it should do a great job.

From my username one should expect that I like all things digital. And yet I just like playing with big reels going in circles.

Regards

 

[regebro]

It taught me many things about discrete sampling vs continuious spectrum. Hey, I thought 12 bits gives a dynamic range of 72 dB, it should do a great job

well, the emulator II only had 8bits and it did a great job!

(Ok, ok, it was unlinear so it actually had more like 70db of range).

 

[evm1024]

And you are still wrong. It is now well established that the word is "accurate". Can we drop that question now?

"Accurate" is a relative word. You must compare it with something.

No. I have the feeling (but I'm not sure) that your view is so full of misconceptions about this issue that we tend to talk over each others heads.

Well the question of how accurate digital is is not established. It will not be established until we see the test results. So far there is only opinion and not facts.

Relative? Of course! We are compairing the digital chain to the original output of the preamp.

You said that doing any filtering in the digital domain would skew the results. But that is the second part of the test. If we are looking to see if the color of digital is objectionable (to some) we do need to do some filtering. Do you record without any filtering?

As for misconceptions that is what I was thinking about you. My background is as a system engineer. Most of my programming has been in assembly in embedded systems. I've designed a number of data sampeling systems that work at audio frequencies up to video frequencies. Currently I've designed and operate a beowulf cluster of 128 nodes with 50 TB of data online. We have a realtime data collection network that measures the parameters of the Columbia River and the near Ocean shelf out to about 30 miles. This is analog to digital and process the data and compair to the model results. Of course our sample rate is much less than audio and the precision of hte data is much less than 16 bits. I do not say that I am an digital audio engineer but I am a research engineer with 35 years experience in digital and analog design.

Please let know about those misconceptions you suspect that I have.

regards

 

[Beck]

My point is that the last stop for virtually all professional commercial relaesed recordings (other than CD) is the digital workstation for editing and album ordering. Therefore, the recordings that say "AAD" really are "ADD" even though they recorded the basic tracks on an analog machine. The studios use analog machines these days for the effect that they have on drums, bass and guitars. They can, and do, record all digital when the song demands it.

The above is true, but only part of the truth. Who has said it is not? Why do you assume we need a teacher? Of course analog in used in the above ways. The problem is you are not demonstrating awareness of how much more diverse and varied recording techniques are beyond the above. You should know how hot the issue is of how much or little DAW editing should be used. That is an entire debate in itself, though part of the larger digital/analog issue.

There are also countless studios that move to the digital format at the last possible phase. I mean literally countless in that I lost count when searching studio websites. They track analog and master to 1/4" or 1/2" half-track. Some also track in analog; mix with Pro Tools and then master to analog half-track.

There are also commercial studios that have no digital tracking whatsoever and send a half-track master to mastering and/or duplication houses for transfer to digital format. Why do you think every major mastering house still accepts analog tape as one of many formats?

All of the above more so now than in the 90's. It is your portrayal of the current scene that is dated. Analog is alive and well in both the tracking and mastering stages.

That being said, I have always described digital as the dominant technology, which it is, and that fact is part of the cause for the poor state of music (my opinion). You seem unable to ascribe a person's preference for analog to anything other than lack of awareness. That is both narrow and arrogant.

Listen to these engineers digital recordings and you will see that the "digital bashing" is based on equipment made long ago. The "analog sound" has been what our generation (or anyone listening to pre-digital music) is used to.

My opinions about digital are based on current technology and a full understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of both technologies in their many forms. I know what is available; who is using what and how bad most contemporary music still sounds sonically.

My opinions and the opinions of others in the industry that I keep up with are not based on old technology. Though there are some out there that probably are stagnated in their perceptions by distant experiences with early digital -- absolutely. Ironically there are many more people who have accepted and believe digital is Nirvana based on old outdated testimonials of outdated and overrated digital.

The new engineers will never see analog and rightly so. Analog is pretty much done in both pro and consumer markets. I guess according to all the analog only guys, when the last analog machine dies there should be no more music.

Lastly, all audio engineering schools have dumped their analog everything. They don't teach on anything but Pro-Tools and analog/digital consoles. So, digital is here to stay and it won't matter to you or anyone on here that refuses to embrace it. This discussion is meaningless as well. The world is digital and will stay that way.

That sounded disturbingly like a sophomore spitting back notes from the lecture of a shortsighted college professor speaking in the 90’s.

I think one thing that makes some of your statements fall flat with me is your frequent use of words like, none, never, and all. Once again a quick google search will return many music/recording and engineering/recording schools that still have analog courses, complete with equipment lists, if you care to look.

The engineering going on to make the digital systems sound more analog is under way in a fast and futile manner. These digital guys will catch up and make analog vs. digital a moot point period.

Why would engineers want to make digital sound more analog if digital is already the better sounding format?

If they do catch up we all will have won. The argument that analog was the reference to beat will be settled and we will all have the sweat sound of analog with the convenience of digital. Who wouldn’t want that?

The future of analog will be (and currently is becoming) a buisiness of "boutique" studios that will offer analog recording for the "retro" artists and charge accordingly.
.

You have never been to Nashville.

Right now, if you look at the audio broker pages, you will see that the pro used machine market is totally glutted with used machines. These machines are going to home studio owners and some pros for parts/use. But there are way too many for sale with no buyers. Exactly the opposite with the consumer Tascams and the like. I will say that in a few years, a pro machine will be cheaper than a Tascam 16 track.

Super studios are a dying breed. There are fewer, but those that are still in existence have the best analog machines money can buy and they aren’t going anywhere. Many studios have only recently (last 5 years) managed to get machines like they foolishly dumped in the 90’s back after going through considerable grief. I don’t want to have to keep repeating this (you know – the same shit over and over as you’ve previously said you were tired of having to do.), but the objective verifiable fact (not opinion) is that studios have brought analog back since it’s demise in the 90’s. That means it is more common than it was in an earlier time. That should mean something to anyone who can do math.

Unfortunately good studios are closing as the market favors an inferior product. Consequently they are selling their equipment. The masses are buying cheap junk and are told they can do it all with a PC. Why would the average person look twice at a Studer? Ask Albini. If he doesn’t agree, we’re not talking about the same Steve Albini. Ask to see his driver’s license because this guy may be yanking your chain.

-Tim