Support |
> >> > > The LoOpDoctOrs don't agree...we listen with our ears and we hear that hard > disc recording kills what we can afford for analogue and we love the freedom > allowed by our computer. .... In short, we trust our ears and nobody's spec sheets. And we are HIGHLY > suspicious of faux scientific explanations as to why we should accept "less" > as "more." That includes marketing/compression schemes. Bang for the buck is > one thing, but don't tell our ears they're related to jerky knees. The > "twitch factor" for marketing types with profit line incentives is much higher > then the > "knee jerk" factor in musicians. and you're absolutely correct. but it's all about balance. i really think life is too short to worry about a few 1,000 khz of compresssion or inaudibility. very few people can blindfold test this stuff. I don't know about everyone esle - but i make music so someone will hear it, and like it or not, lo or hi tech, our music will be heard on boom boxes, bose wave radio, walkman crappy headphoes, car stereos of umpteen diff. quality levels.. etc. i 'm not trying to pick a fight in the least bit, but lets step back - if someone finds affordable gear for their current budget and it can trap their musical performance in time, that's all ya need. the recently departed Micheal Hedges, for all the warmth and beauty of his guiatr sound, used old analog tape machines, but also used digital stuff, synths and hard drive recording. now's he's gone, as we all will be, and should we get to that other side saying " i woulda recorded my masterpiece - but the specs were wrong" on the other extreme - again, you're correct, the corporations have, do, and will milk all these alternative for what they are worth and beyond. the trick is to catch what falls between the cracks, like the fisher-price "toy" video camera that now fetches hundreds, or the quickly discontinued casio cz 101, still a fave. i think MD may do a bit better, but is in that category as far as the big suits are concerned. use what works. andre