Quantcast
Analog vs Digital Emulations - A culinary comparison - Page 9 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Analog vs Digital Emulations - A culinary comparison
Old 6 days ago
  #241
Lives for gear
 
clearwave's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I have to back on forth between the world of analog tape/ mixing all the time. I know very well the disappointment of hearing the digital version of an analog recording. That’s a real thing. BUT I accepted the fact that 99.99% of the listeners will NEVER hear the analog version, me, the mastering engineer, and maybe a couple of other people. I’ve learned to mix for the listener. Heck, I’ll probably listen to the finished analog version only once or twice. I’ve mixed a mountain of 100% analog recordings, but to listen to them now, I’ll be hearing the digital version.

This has helped me embrace 100% ITB recording a bit more. Because the output of a DAW is pretty much what the listeners will be hearing forever (aside from what the mastering engineer will do). You’re hearing the finished product in real-time, musical decisions can be made from that. As long as my decisions are made based on feelings and emotion, I did my job.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #242
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
The problem with tape vs digital recording discussions is everyone assumes everyone is recording the same music. I can understand an indie label wanting to work with tape, it would be a calling card of sorts, but for the modern recordist, there are just too many pitfalls: scarcity of parts, tape, tape recording time, tape wear and storage, and the expense of parts and maintenance - I.e, for a simple 8 track setup, you’d need 8 hardware limiters - one per channel!

I work in the commercial music library domain - I write both acoustic and electronic pieces for network and cable tv shows, as well as a smattering of film work here and there. I’m working on 4 pieces of music right now, each with their own set of complexities - lots of hardware synths, guitars, drums and percussion - all laid out in mix templates that would be impossible to duplicate in the analog realm - if I wanted “that tape sound”, I’d have to run complete tape mixes through a two channel machine, at best - and for what purpose, but to obtain less signal to noise, some wear over the heads, some tape flutter??? Instead, I have plenty of distortion, carefully selected, automated and, because I’m not emulating anything, completely impossible to duplicate in the analog domain.

When I first heard digital was on its way, back in the early 80s, I was floored, I couldn’t yet afford it (I was, like everyone also in my end of the industry, either workin on four and eight track small projects, or demos later tracked to sixteen and twenty four track). However,I did the research and quickly understood the science of digital sampling ( no stair steps, guys) and the beauty of it - when I began recording in digital, almost 30 years ago now, I loved how everything that was recorded, sounded exactly the same as what I was monitoring - which is counter to what the tape guys here are reporting. The first pro digital system I was exposed to was at Amigo in North Hollywood where I overdubbed some Juno 6 parts onto digital 32 track they were using (to supplement synclavier tracks on an incomplete record). I was sold!

We all do different kinds of music, for some things, a “tape sound” might be desirable, but I’ve got to say, I’ve got stacks of old multi tracks here, that if still playable, would require baking and careful handling, and when transferred to digital formats, will sound exactly the same as they did when played from an analog machine. That’s the beauty of the format, its transparency - digital has no sound - that’s what allows mr radar, the “wonder troll”, to post examples of why he thinks his analog mix versions are better - represented by the miracle of digital files. It’s astounding he doesn’t realize the contradiction and irony of this, but then, many analog-at-all-cost types, don’t.

So, whatever floats your boat, it shouldn’t be a this vs that, but rather, what makes the best business sense, and provides enjoyment, and what’s most appropriate for the music/ sound being recorded. Tape is a medium that degrades sound, as is analog, this isn’t a bad thing, but it has to be taken into account. I prefer starting out with the highest possible fidelity, and working my way down from there - and there are plenty of times where I wind up at pretty low levels of fidelity - all under my control.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #243
Gear Guru
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand ➡️
It is true that many folks haven't tracked/mixed to tape. I have. But others haven't and then they don't know the joy, and pain, of it.

I still think you're wrong to dismiss the recordings of the digital era like they can't sound good. And I think you're wrong to suggest that the highest state of the recording, mixing arts was achieved in the late 60's.
Around 1975/1976 actually. Listen (or re-listen) to things like
the Bee Gees (starting with Main Course Al Stewart's "Year Of The Cat".

Or for that matter Leo Sayer's "You Make Me Feel Like Dancing".

Chris
P.S. I cheated and came in on page 9.
Will try to catch up on the first 8 pages,
over the weekend.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #244
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand ➡️
It is true that many folks haven't tracked/mixed to tape. I have. But others haven't and then they don't know the joy, and pain, of it.

I still think you're wrong to dismiss the recordings of the digital era like they can't sound good. And I think you're wrong to suggest that the highest state of the recording, mixing arts was achieved in the late 60's.
lol the pain?
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #245
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravyface ➡️
Hats off for stating your preferences without being a condescending jerk about it.

I just finished Bill Schnee's book and he mentions how he'd always try to usher in session musicians into the control room when they weren't cutting their particular track so that they could hear what the band actually sounded like when monitoring off the board, because they'd always be disappointed when they heard the tape playback in comparison.

I still think nostalgia is a powerful motivator here, but the key is not so much the science/fidelity, but the motivation itself to do good things and enjoy yourself in the process: if that is what tape represents to you, awesome, keep it goin' (somebody has to!).
Bill Schnee recorded some basic tracks on an album I produced at Producers Workshop in 1976 I believe. So, we finally agree on something, Gravy, he is one of the best, learned a lot from him and his posse.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #246
Lives for gear
 
gravyface's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by RADAR User ➡️
lol the pain?
Tape shedding, due to some bad formulas (3M, age).

Accidentally erasing a track/take. DAW/Digital: it's pretty difficult to delete a take and you have infinite undos for the most part. Creating a copy is simple, lossless.

Generational fidelity loss due to bounces. No such thing with digital.

High-end loss with excessive playback (and the need to keep safeties or work off of a tracking tape and keep the master stored away until the end). No such thing with digital.

Editing was tricky in comparison to today. Digital is simple and reversible.

Long-term archiving (despite what Steve Albini says) is much simpler, lossless, inexpensive, and takes up far less physical space.

So yeah, I would say that there is some pain involved with tape.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #247
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 ➡️
The problem with tape vs digital recording discussions is everyone assumes everyone is recording the same music. I can understand an indie label wanting to work with tape, it would be a calling card of sorts, but for the modern recordist, there are just too many pitfalls: scarcity of parts, tape, tape recording time, tape wear and storage, and the expense of parts and maintenance - I.e, for a simple 8 track setup, you’d need 8 hardware limiters - one per channel!

I work in the commercial music library domain - I write both acoustic and electronic pieces for network and cable tv shows, as well as a smattering of film work here and there. I’m working on 4 pieces of music right now, each with their own set of complexities - lots of hardware synths, guitars, drums and percussion - all laid out in mix templates that would be impossible to duplicate in the analog realm - if I wanted “that tape sound”, I’d have to run complete tape mixes through a two channel machine, at best - and for what purpose, but to obtain less signal to noise, some wear over the heads, some tape flutter??? Instead, I have plenty of distortion, carefully selected, automated and, because I’m not emulating anything, completely impossible to duplicate in the analog domain.

When I first heard digital was on its way, back in the early 80s, I was floored, I couldn’t yet afford it (I was, like everyone also in my end of the industry, either workin on four and eight track small projects, or demos later tracked to sixteen and twenty four track). However,I did the research and quickly understood the science of digital sampling ( no stair steps, guys) and the beauty of it - when I began recording in digital, almost 30 years ago now, I loved how everything that was recorded, sounded exactly the same as what I was monitoring - which is counter to what the tape guys here are reporting. The first pro digital system I was exposed to was at Amigo in North Hollywood where I overdubbed some Juno 6 parts onto digital 32 track they were using (to supplement synclavier tracks on an incomplete record). I was sold!

We all do different kinds of music, for some things, a “tape sound” might be desirable, but I’ve got to say, I’ve got stacks of old multi tracks here, that if still playable, would require baking and careful handling, and when transferred to digital formats, will sound exactly the same as they did when played from an analog machine. That’s the beauty of the format, its transparency - digital has no sound - that’s what allows mr radar, the “wonder troll”, to post examples of why he thinks his analog mix versions are better - represented by the miracle of digital files. It’s astounding he doesn’t realize the contradiction and irony of this, but then, many analog-at-all-cost types, don’t.

So, whatever floats your boat, it shouldn’t be a this vs that, but rather, what makes the best business sense, and provides enjoyment, and what’s most appropriate for the music/ sound being recorded. Tape is a medium that degrades sound, as is analog, this isn’t a bad thing, but it has to be taken into account. I prefer starting out with the highest possible fidelity, and working my way down from there - and there are plenty of times where I wind up at pretty low levels of fidelity - all under my control.
if i had to do this to make a living, wouldn't use tape either, hats off to anyone, like you, actually making a living after the old school music business died

RU
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #248
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravyface ➡️
Tape shedding, due to some bad formulas (3M, age).

Accidentally erasing a track/take. DAW/Digital: it's pretty difficult to delete a take and you have infinite undos for the most part. Creating a copy is simple, lossless.

Generational fidelity loss due to bounces. No such thing with digital.

High-end loss with excessive playback (and the need to keep safeties or work off of a tracking tape and keep the master stored away until the end). No such thing with digital.

Editing was tricky in comparison to today. Digital is simple and reversible.

Long-term archiving (despite what Steve Albini says) is much simpler, lossless, inexpensive, and takes up far less physical space.

So yeah, I would say that there is some pain involved with tape.
Agree with you 1,000% about Albini, digital storage is supreme
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #249
Lives for gear
 
gravyface's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by RADAR User ➡️
Agree with you 1,000% about Albini, digital storage is supreme
And the rest of my points, points that the entire music industry, audio technology professionals and manufacturers, pros of yesteryear and today, all agree with... you don't?
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #250
Gear Guru
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand ➡️
Don't drag down music that happened after you got old as though there is nothing good anymore..

You have just eliminated 50% of the content of this website!

Think of how much hard drive space Jules could reclaim.
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #251
Gear Guru
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom ➡️
I resonate with this description. As JoeEQ said, it may be that it is inaccurate.
I think it is one of the great failings of this forum - indeed our whole society - how many people accept mythologizing and pseudoscience because something about the "story" appeals to them emotionally.

Here is my thought experiment to refute the 1 molecule = 1 bit thesis that is a bit more specific than the Wooly Willy example.

go to the ATR factory and grab a bit of tape off the assembly line with backing and binder but no oxide. Now, using an electron microscope and whatever precision tools, carefully place 16 individual molecules of Fe2O3 all right next to each other, as close as they would be if there were trillions of them. But only 16 individual molecules. Not 15 and not 17.

Now connect the record head of any existing tape deck. Any tape deck ever made, in any era. Using just that record head, align the first molecule of iron oxide to a "North" orientation. Align the second molecule to "South". Then two more "North"s. Make a couple of paradiddles out of individual molecules of oxide:

NSNNSNSSNSNNSNSS

Just writing it out in complete sentences shows how preposterous this argument for tape "resolution" is. No recording head is capable of this. Just trying to "align" molecule number 8 will totally scramble up all the molecules on either side and if there were more on the tape, tens of thousands of others. Hundreds of thousands.

In any case, resolution is empirical. Not based on a fanciful description of how it is arrived at, but in the results. You can simply measure the output result against the input wave. What happens in-between can be a black box.

Just as people have to stop confusing music that happened after they got old with "bad music", people also have to stop confusing what they like with "science".

Last edited by joeq; 5 days ago at 11:08 PM.. Reason: correct chemical formula
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #252
Lives for gear
 
gravyface's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq ➡️
I think it is one of the great failings of this forum - indeed our whole society - how many people accept mythologizing and pseudoscience because something about the "story" appeals to them emotionally.

Here is my thought experiment to refute the 1 molecule = 1 bit thesis that is a bit more specific than the Wooly Willy example.

go to the ATR factory and grab a bit of tape off the assembly line with backing and binder but no oxide. Now, using an electron microscope and whatever precision tools, carefully place 16 individual molecules of FeO2 all right next to each other, as close as they would be if there were trillions of them. But only 16 individual molecules. Not 15 and not 17.

Now connect the record head of any existing tape deck. Any tape deck ever made, in any era. Using just that record head, align the first molecule of iron oxide to a "North" orientation. Align the second molecule to "South". Then two more "North"s. Make a couple of paradiddles out of individual molecules of oxide:

NSNNSNSSNSNNSNSS

Just writing it out in complete sentences shows how preposterous this argument for tape "resolution" is. No recording head is capable of this. Just trying to "align" molecule number 8 will totally scramble up all the molecules on either side and if there were more on the tape, tens of thousands of others. Hundreds of thousands.

In any case, resolution is empirical. Not based on a fanciful description of how it is arrived at, but in the results. You can simply measure the output result against the input wave. What happens in-between can be a black box.

Just as people have to stop confusing music that happened after they got old with "bad music", people also have to stop confusing what they like with "science".
Molecule paradiddles

I can see the nano tech drummers of the future practicing that religiously...
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #253
Gear Guru
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravyface ➡️
Molecule paradiddles .
I chose paradiddles because I love them; but also because they are pretty arbitrary and hard to end up with by chance.

Quote:
I can see the nano tech drummers of the future practicing that religiously...
the trick will be to find a pair of drumsticks small enough
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #254
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravyface ➡️
And the rest of my points, points that the entire music industry, audio technology professionals and manufacturers, pros of yesteryear and today, all agree with... you don't?
I am talking sound (food)...not the biz (selling food)...i saw that close up back in the day...I am sure the same screwer vs screwie paradigm sill exists, just the same ol same ol, nothing new in human nature just different plug ins.

A poiny about an audio technology professional?

Will this affect my music?

The thread after all, does not say, if your income was dependent on people eating your food, it askes which is better. I think fresh is best and I can make it for myself.

I will leave the philosophical musing about those weasel word ideas like "entire music industry" to smarter folks like you.
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #255
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq ➡️
I think it is one of the great failings of this forum - indeed our whole society - how many people accept mythologizing and pseudoscience because something about the "story" appeals to them emotionally.

Here is my thought experiment to refute the 1 molecule = 1 bit thesis that is a bit more specific than the Wooly Willy example.

go to the ATR factory and grab a bit of tape off the assembly line with backing and binder but no oxide. Now, using an electron microscope and whatever precision tools, carefully place 16 individual molecules of Fe2O3 all right next to each other, as close as they would be if there were trillions of them. But only 16 individual molecules. Not 15 and not 17.

Now connect the record head of any existing tape deck. Any tape deck ever made, in any era. Using just that record head, align the first molecule of iron oxide to a "North" orientation. Align the second molecule to "South". Then two more "North"s. Make a couple of paradiddles out of individual molecules of oxide:

NSNNSNSSNSNNSNSS

Just writing it out in complete sentences shows how preposterous this argument for tape "resolution" is. No recording head is capable of this. Just trying to "align" molecule number 8 will totally scramble up all the molecules on either side and if there were more on the tape, tens of thousands of others. Hundreds of thousands.

In any case, resolution is empirical. Not based on a fanciful description of how it is arrived at, but in the results. You can simply measure the output result against the input wave. What happens in-between can be a black box.

Just as people have to stop confusing music that happened after they got old with "bad music", people also have to stop confusing what they like with "science".
Ah, now, see you are having a debate with an emminent proponent of analogue about the science.

True, you are berating the opposing side in a condescending manner, but all good.

See you on the flip side kids, been a blast.

PM me if you ever make a record!

RU
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #256
Lives for gear
 
gravyface's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by RADAR User ➡️
I am talking sound (food)...not the biz (selling food)...i saw that close up back in the day...I am sure the same screwer vs screwie paradigm sill exists, just the same ol same ol, nothing new in human nature just different plug ins.

A poiny about an audio technology professional?

Will this affect my music?

The thread after all, does not say, if your income was dependent on people eating your food, it askes which is better. I think fresh is best and I can make it for myself.

I will leave the philosophical musing about those weasel word ideas like "entire music industry" to smarter folks like you.
And here’s where I realize I’ve been talking to an insane person and sheepishly exit this thread posthaste.
Old 5 days ago
  #257
Gear Guru
 
Shane-ahem-Radar come baaaaccck!

Geez I expected more of a response about my 75/76 thing.
Guess I'll have to add some more all time Classic examples like.... "Billy Don't Be A Hero" or "Disco Duck". (well "Billy" was '74)
Chris
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #258
Gear Guru
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravyface ➡️
And the rest of my points, points that the entire music industry, audio technology professionals and manufacturers, pros of yesteryear and today, all agree with... you don't?
Please don't confuse us with (gasp!) FACTS!

Chris
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #259
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chessparov2.0 ➡️
Shane-ahem-Radar come baaaaccck!

Geez I expected more of a response about my 75/76 thing.
Guess I'll have to add some more all time Classic examples like.... "Billy Don't Be A Hero" or "Disco Duck". (well "Billy" was '74)
Chris
Few people will get your Shane reference
Old 5 days ago
  #260
Gear Guru
 
Unless they saw it as a Ladd.
Chris
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #261
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chessparov2.0 ➡️
Unless they saw it as a Ladd.
Chris
Ooooh, ouch.
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #262
Here for the gear
 
My dad’s bigger than your dad
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #263
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chessparov2.0 ➡️
Unless they saw it as a Ladd.
Chris
Moog’s new filter is to be called the Alan ladder Low Pass - It comes standard with its own step stool.
Old 4 days ago | Show parent
  #264
Gear Addict
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom ➡️
I resonate with this description. As JoeEQ said, it may be that it is inaccurate. I spent 25 years working with both tape and pro tools in New York. Much of my work was in working on 2" 16 track and 2" 8 track for a day and then converting the tape to files at the end of the day. There was no point when the digital playback sounded "exactly like the tape" (the output of the Studer was multed to both the patch bay and 16 channels of conversion). There was always a period of mourning. Always. Every time. The beautiful 16 track experience we had built through the afternoon was always smaller and less three dimensional when we did pro tools playback. Every time. I am willing at this point in my life to accept that perhaps I am strange, or simply old, or simply wrong, but, I own my perceptions and my experience. I built up enough of a niche clientele of all age ranges that I survived. I am less concerned with proselytizing than I once was. If digital works for you, great. I am in the process of building a new room in London. It is again based around my console and my Studer. I can not imagine having the will to continue recording if digital were the primary format. For me, it simply the sound I love and that I hear in my head. I also think it is perhaps laziness. Digital - in my experience - takes a lot of fiddling to make sound good and its sound will always be digital - I will always hear that, and for me, it is distracting. Tape is really easy. The good song/microphone/board/maybe compressor/tape recorder/bit of plate/ formula has meant that I no longer think about anything but the music and the performance. I would also say that my Studer and board have required 5% of the maintenance headaches/ hastles/ TLC that the pro tools rig/digidesign/avid have required. The other big thing is that as I make plans to upgrade to what is needed for the new space, all of the analog gear has appreciated in value. The $39,000 I have spent since 2002 on digital products is entirely worthless in 2021. No value. The new business model requires one to perpetually financially service the digital equipment provider. The analog gear maker feels shame and pride about their creation, often fixing it for free - all of it designed to be repaired for lifetime use. The digital gear is all headed for the landfill.

Be well


Jack
Did you ever measure any of this or perhaps have some files left over so we can try to determine the difference or did you just take it on faith?
Old 4 days ago | Show parent
  #265
Gear Addict
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by RADAR User ➡️
lol the pain?
If you have to ask, you most likely haven't had to work with tape on the clock in front of clients in a modern setting where they are used to digital
Old 4 days ago | Show parent
  #266
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio ➡️
Did you ever measure any of this or perhaps have some files left over so we can try to determine the difference or did you just take it on faith?
I am 54.
I was lucky enough to get a little record player when I was 5 in 1972.
I use my ears.
My lifetime of using my ears.
I find the concept of "measurement" apocryphal in audio - in my experience it is when someone asks you to look at a printed sheet or a computer screen in the hopes that some data there might be more significant than what you are hearing. Over this thirty years of digital, there have been some very impressive graphs and images for how detailed the sound was - a sound that was not very good when you were just listening to it. I have never been able to be talked into hearing something differently. I was also lucky enough to have friends - friends working in audio, like my friend Walter Sear, rip. He was as perplexed and dumbfounded by digital as I have been. He was always thinking and postulated some interesting ideas. He always wanted to do MRI tests with content recorded in analog and digital - he believed that the recordings, while sharing much overlap, triggered different parts of the brain, and were thereby, different experiences.

So, ya, faith.
Enough great players behind my desk in NYC thrilled to be working on 2"
16 track saying, "this is the best playback I have heard in 20 years".
There is no list of data that would alter this experience. There is no measurement that would alter this experience.


Be well

Jack
Old 4 days ago | Show parent
  #267
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
I find it funny, that I am sure a lot of you analogue guys here are enjoying listening to vinyl.....when most of the vinyl cutting since thr late 70s on were all running through (early) digital delays.
Old 4 days ago | Show parent
  #268
Gear Guru
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom ➡️
I am 54.
I was lucky enough to get a little record player when I was 5 in 1972.
I use my ears.
My lifetime of using my ears.
I find the concept of "measurement" apocryphal in audio - in my experience it is when someone asks you to look at a printed sheet or a computer screen in the hopes that some data there might be more significant than what you are hearing. Over this thirty years of digital, there have been some very impressive graphs and images for how detailed the sound was - a sound that was not very good when you were just listening to it. I have never been able to be talked into hearing something differently. I was also lucky enough to have friends - friends working in audio, like my friend Walter Sear, rip. He was as perplexed and dumbfounded by digital as I have been. He was always thinking and postulated some interesting ideas. He always wanted to do MRI tests with content recorded in analog and digital - he believed that the recordings, while sharing much overlap, triggered different parts of the brain, and were thereby, different experiences.

So, ya, faith.
Enough great players behind my desk in NYC thrilled to be working on 2"
16 track saying, "this is the best playback I have heard in 20 years".
There is no list of data that would alter this experience. There is no measurement that would alter this experience.


Be well

Jack
Hmm... Impressive waveform.
Bad sound.

Somehow reminds me of "The Picture Of Dorian Gray".
Even before the Autotune.
Chris
Old 4 days ago | Show parent
  #269
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chessparov2.0 ➡️
Hmm... Impressive waveform.
Bad sound.

Somehow reminds me of "The Picture Of Dorian Gray".
Even before the Autotune.
Chris
In Maid's Room NYC, nothing would make me more insane during digital sessions than watching a band huddled around the computer screen as if they were making a movie............................
Old 4 days ago
  #270
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
A culinary comparison?

You add sugar to an espresso. It becomes sweet but also loses the bitterness.

You buy some stevia. There is a lack of some of the side effects of sugar.

You put it in ice tea. Hmm, tea is sweet, a little different than sugar.

You put stevia in the espresso.

“How in the world is this sweet and bitter at the same time?”
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 162 views: 20523
Avatar for Lrmusic
Lrmusic 26th January 2010
replies: 28758 views: 3041864
Avatar for ceemusic
ceemusic 58 minutes ago
replies: 72 views: 12004
Avatar for Karloff70
Karloff70 24th February 2021
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump