After over 30 years in this biz, I can safely say I'm not jerking my knees over anything. :wink: For me, it's about efficiency, accuracy, and reliability with my tools.
It's important to remember that this discussion started about a type of capture and storage medium, not nec. a creative tool.
How much the storage medium itself imparts itself on the sound is an inescapable part of the recording process. (It's unfortunate, but it's true.) Consider safe, unadulterated storage of a liquid:
When you pour a pure liquid (eg: water) into a container, you should get only the liquid back out. This works for a glass beaker, but not necessarily for a waxed paper cup, or a wooden mug, esp if it's HOT water. Changes, not all of them good, can occur and affect the character or integrity of the liquid. Impurities occur, and it's now different, even by a little. (The opposite is true with good whiskey - the changes brought on to the evaporating liquid inside of the wood casks over years is just as much part of the taste as the whiskey itself.)
Same with telling a story. You can write it down, so the exact same words come back with every reading, or you can tell someone orally, and hope they'll repeat it back to you next time as accurately as possible.
It's no different with the medium we use to store audio. Do you get exactly out of it what you put into it? Does it come back exactly as you recorded it, or are there subtle changes embedded in it. Is the bass boosted a little bit at 80 hz? (that's 'head-bump" - an anamoly of analog tape recording, often misconstrued as "warmth") Does it sound brittle and jagged at the top end? (That's "Bad" digital -from jitter or no dithering, or any number of problems in the signal chain.) Is there now more hiss than when you started? Was it caused by the I/O electronics, or the media itself?
We're talking about two technologies neither are even 100 years old, and as close as we still are to it all, it's easy to mistake the tools for the art itself. The analog vs. digital realm argument (in its most typical, misinformed state) always misses the real point: These are imperfect tools that still impart their own fingerprint on a sound, no matter how subtle. Likewise, DSP vs Analog circuitry, tape loops, plugins, and what-have-you are no different than choosing pastels over oil paints, or canvas vs. matte paper, or charcoal vs. pencil drawing.
In another 100 years, (hopefully sooner) the capture/storage medium capabilities will become so sonically transparant as to render this argument moot. Until then, we have basically two storage media that each have their advantages, and their drawbacks. One is clearly winning out over the other nowadays, for a variety of resasons, most of them understandable.
Personally, I've found the current state of digital capture, storage and manipulation to be so much more cost-effective, accurate and reliable as to now render the argument moot. The hoops one must jump through with getting analog to work at the same level of quality and reliability as digital is simply no longer worth it. I know this because I've worked in both mediums and enjoy them both. I can still hear the difference most of the time, and again, to me, this is nothing more than ink vs acrylic, or impressionist vs. cubist painting. Both have their places.
I also think that in 100 years, this curious thing we call the "Analog" realm will be just another wonderful flavor available. As much as I'll miss it (like a sore thumb, perhaps), the next generation - and the ones after that - will know it in less emotional, hostage-like terms, and will reach for it like a flavor for cooking or making a better sauce. Some will want it, others wont, but it wont be praised - or villified - as anything more than a choice of seasioning in a meal.
I'm fine with the sonic palette anyone chooses to make their "drawings", but it still makes me laugh when people mistake the choice of the crayon for the intent of the art itself.
...)Give me Dat Versus ADAT versus Reel to Reel quality etc... comparisons and Brand advice...Used & refurb'd considered.
