jonfinn

"Rehearse more, edit less." Gold, right there!

This was very well written and expressed. I'm a musician first, recording engineer second. I started learning about multi-track recording in the 1970's. From my point of view, almost everything about digital recording is superior to analog: -Track counts -Bang for the buck (a decent sounding analog tape deck started at around $25,000) -Media storage (Today for $100 you can buy a 1TB hard drive that will fit many hours worth of audio tracks. Back in the day, you paid $140 for a reel of Ampex 456 that gave you 15 minutes at 30 ips) -Undo. Need I say more? -On a digital system, the rewind time is pretty close to 0 seconds. -On an analog system, you have a limited number of plays before the sound is degraded If you get all romantic about analog, that's fine. But for me, I'm still impressed when I hit the "play" button and don't hear any tape hiss. Phil's point about playing is well-taken. Back in the day you didn't go in to a recording studio without being good and ready. The reason is simple. Economics. Today's environment encourages more of a "seat of the pants/try anything" approach. That occasionally works great, but often doesn't. If I have anything to add, it would be to encourage the player to get the sounds, and play the part end-to-end rather than copy/paste. Use real instruments whenever possible. Use the technology to enhance rather than compensate for inability. What do YOU think? Thanks -Jon