Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="YodaGetsFunky, post: 69160"] Yep... I think the thing is this: when digital was introduced, it was perceived to be the magic bullet that was going to cure all our audio ailments — and for much less money! I remember specifically lots of talk about multiple generations, and how they don't matter at all — pure sound coming and going, in and out, here and there... no sweat. Hey, I do love digital at its best, and if the setup and configuration and all the equipment is properly matched, much of the promise [B]is[/B] fulfilled. But, in my opinion, for digital to do what those original promises seemed to imply would mean it would have to stand up against a brand new Studer 24 track with the best configuration there is for noise specs (if that's 30 ips or Dolby S or something else or any combination). That is a [B]TALL[/B] order, and I don't believe the bulk of the digital solutions are quite there. From what I gather about Radar, is that they have put all their efforts into simply doing what I've just described. They've blown off (for the time being) added functionality (except for no wait cue points that are a given with non-linear HD recording) and all sort of workstation audio manipulation in order to let someone who has HAD (or wished to have) full-blown analog multi-tracks make the switch, retaining or gaining in specs and adding benefits such as no dropouts or tape degradation, etc. When I think of comparing digital to analog, I think only of comparing it to absolute state of the art analog. In other words, sure... my CD player sounds better than any cassette player I ever had. But how does it hold up against a 1/2" full track stereo master? The reason I hold digital to such high standards is because of all the initial hype. Digital is digital, so it wasn't supposed to matter if your CD player (or DAW or DAT or HD recorder or whatever) was inexpensive or high dollar. "Digital is digital... it's just numbers". I heard that a lot. :) In theory, maybe, but in reality, I've heard plenty of digital not sound so hot. When CDs came out, I was disappointed at the sample rate. It put a hard ceiling of frequency response too near the ear's limit. That is going to be fixed soon. For me, and I admit to being stuck in old methods, all I want is something that behaves for the most part like a good analog system. I want to be able to do lots of playbacks without worrying about the effect I'm having on the master. I want to be able to have an ABSOLUTE backup. I want instant cue points. And I want some UNDOs for those little accidents. And I want the sound to be as musical and "pretty" (non-technical, sounds good on anything from a live string quartet to good ol' rock 'n' roll) as the best analog. And I'll happily accept improvements in distortion, wow and flutter, and noise; so long as the actual sound is as good. Can digital do that? Yes. But hardly ANY were doing that at the beginning, and even now you have to pick and choose. The word "digital" is not synonymous with quality. And from a functionality viewpoint, I get the impression that most makers of digital audio are throwing so many bells and whistles into the soup that it is no wonder that message boards are full of people who are frustrated over doing the simplest tasks; tasks which, back in analog days, were so easy they were absolute no brainers. I read all kinds of stories about people who spends thousands, take the stuff home, and it is six weeks before they can put down a track and then put down another track in sync with it — basic multi-tracking. That stuff scares me. It is possible this is a generational thing to some extent. Younger people have been raised on computers. Picking commands windows deep and navigating software comes much more naturally to people raised on the paradigm. However, I think even people who are total whizes with OS command structures can appreciate the simple beauty of dedicated buttons for recording specific tracks. [/QUOTE]

Verification: If I broke one guitar string, how many would I have left?