Brought my mind here:https://twitter.com/BostonFire/status/1 ... 0659022848

There's no denying the romance of old machines. Anything from a bygone era represents something that contrasts with whatever we have going on now.Why else would I buy a Commodore 64 or spend my weekend repairing an old arcade cabinet?

numberthirty wrote:n.c. wrote:idk, i'm just thinking out loud. of course, i didn't provide mix down medium for the analog setup. could be a cassette, or cd burner. OTOH, laptop memory is going to fill up quick, so some cloud storage at very little a month for the rest of your life. Tossing another "Bullshit Flag"...If you are seriously sinking cash into a cassette or cd burner mixdown situation instead of putting it into a dirt cheap Windows pc/cheap used interface/hard drive?You are tossing money into the fireplace.i'm waving a lot of bullshit around, i guess. i mixed down the only record (of my own music) that was ever actually released, onto cd. not that i'd want to do that again, but i did mix to cd for years. it worked. actually i've got like three 7"s that i recorded, mixed to cd, and then got released. again, not boasting here.i was trying to clumsily point out that you could get into a tape based system for the same money as a computer based system.noone is going to get into a studer and a neotek for the same money as a computer and an interface, but i do think you're better off using as analog a system as possible. i've said that before.my original thesis that working on tape is cheaper was (admittedly from the onset) not going to hold up. the fact that there are hidden costs to digital, and that there seems to be an archival edge to tape is enough for me.i don't work at a desk (anymore). i don't have a lot of free time. i try not to fucundo the forum, but i'll admit that sometimes i'll say some dumb shit i haven't thought through enough and then sit back and watch people smarter then me bring up great points that i didn't think of. done and done.

yeah, i totally stepped in it with the cd burner thing. i need to refrain from posting when my fingers are moving faster than my brain. backing away slowly.

n.c. wrote:i'm waving a lot of bullshit around, i guess. i mixed down the only record (of my own music) that was ever actually released, onto cd. not that i'd want to do that again, but i did mix to cd for years. it worked. actually i've got like three 7"s that i recorded, mixed to cd, and then got released. again, not boasting here.i was trying to clumsily point out that you could get into a tape based system for the same money as a computer based system.noone is going to get into a studer and a neotek for the same money as a computer and an interface, but i do think you're better off using as analog a system as possible. i've said that before.my original thesis that working on tape is cheaper was (admittedly from the onset) not going to hold up. the fact that there are hidden costs to digital, and that there seems to be an archival edge to tape is enough for me.i don't work at a desk (anymore). i don't have a lot of free time. i try not to fucundo the forum, but i'll admit that sometimes i'll say some dumb shit i haven't thought through enough and then sit back and watch people smarter then me bring up great points that i didn't think of. done and done.If you are sitting around trying to talk yourself into that a CD burner is somehow more of an "As Analog As Possible..." piece versus an interface and a computer because of some set of parameters, you are already painting yourself into a corner.No one is giving Frankenstein's Monster a cup of booze just because they have shifted from a CD burner to an interface and a computer.You might as well just go full on "Who Is The Most Straight Edge?', and toss the multitrack machine out because it is too great of a technological leap forward.