If the discernible difference in analog and digital recordings is due to method and aesthetic approach as Steve mentioned above, then it's evident that if one applied an analogous (hehe) approach to a digital recording, and refrained from digital editing muckery then the differences would be minimal.
I fully agree with the arguments as to why one should master to tape, but I don't see such a great advantage in tracking.
Much of the music I make is improvised and we may be playing for an hour before everything clicks and something inspired appears out of the air. I want to capture those moments and recording digitally makes that possible. I can record to hard disk for hours on end with just short pauses to save the files. I seem to remember from when I recorded to tape in studios that a reel would run out after about 15 minutes and that a reel of tape cost a significant chunk of change. It would be completely impractical to record music the way I create it if I was using an analog system. If I didn't approach recording this way, I wouldn't capture the music in the spirit that I create it.
As tacky as it may be, it's also a great help to have the visual information present and the ability to jump cue instantly when sifting though an hour of recordings for the five minutes that you remember were awesome.
I agree in that it's not about the sound quality of the medium per se, but what the medium allows for the aesthetic approach. Digital is more flexible in this regard.
Steve Albini & Ken Andrews on PBS s Wired Science
41
Last edited by bluegreengold_Archive on Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:11 pm, edited 6 times in total.