ITB vs Digital hardware vs Analog

I'm sure there are other threads on this, but Let's start one with current software and hardware.
 
I'm convinced that quality analog is better than dedicated digital is better than CPU based audio processing. I'm hoping to be proved otherwise with shootouts and my own testing. I plan to use this thread over the next six months to document how sonar integrates into a system that has all three methods of mixing, and how those tools integrate, and sound, for a large variety of application that are all portions of making music with the computer as the tape machine at minimum. Everything but the front end at max.
 
Sonar is a program of choice for one simple reason. The efficiency that it handles E-drumming or in general, Soft synths compared to other programs. 
 
Digital recording is now the standard. Tapes cost, noise, and accessibility rules that choice easy.
Microphones are analog devices for the foreseeable future. Pre-amps are still in play as a result.
Because of the above two issues, A/D, D/A. and samples are some of the topics to be covered.
 
The middle ground between all of that are adjustments and Mixing.
From the simplest point of view, there are only three things that can be done with audio. EQ, Volume (Comp, duck, expand, fader), and foldbacks (any effects, delays, reverbs).
The qualities of those three things are measured in terms like: transparent, colored (dark, bright), Harmonic, distorted (including click and pops), warped (jitter, wo and flutter, quantized).
 
The point is, in that middle ground, I'm finding that Analog is better than Digital dedicated hardware is better than ITB.
Better is defined by the qualities listed above.
Examples:
ITB: Any Daw, any VST, any software processing Audio on a CPU
Digital dedicated hardware: Rack mount effects, Digital mixers, my case, MX4 card and an TCE M5000.
Analog (Even if digitally controlled): Old mixers, Pultic EQ, optical compressors.
 
Of course there are very good and very bad examples of every case, and everything in between. The point of this is at the high end, when looking for the ultimate quality of results. The choice should be to go analog as you can afford it. Once you get to a good enough point in quality, it's all about the mixers skills an no longer about the equipment.
 
So here is the question. What is the highest quality system today that makes sense. Here are some of the sub decisions.
 
EQ: This is an artistic choice...need all of them. But will be primarily in the box for the cost effectiveness.
Reverb: I think reverb is best in the Digital dedicated hardware arena.
Mixing: I think mixing is best done in the analog world. hence summing mixers.
Compression: This is an artistic choice...need all of them. Reality will be using hardware as much as can be afforded.
Synths: Analog Keyboards that are really good always sound more expressive to me than the software, mainly because keyboards and buttons done have the sensitivity required. A few even fall into what I call the magic 50 musical items in the world, like a Hammond B3 w/ 122 lesslie, Jupiter 8, Steinway 9' grand piano, Toris foot pedals, Rhodes 73.
 
In case you are wondering more items on that list: Neumann tube mics, API-SSL-NEVE preamps and mixers, Les Paul Guitar, Fender Stratocaster, Marshal Stack, Old zildjian, etc.....
 
In general, there are about 50 pieces of gear, any worthwhile high end studio is expected to have about half of them, and a good replacement for the half they don't have.
 
Now I'm going to get brutal. Real men don't use EQ. If you are a good recording engineer, and have good studio musicians, Mic placement and choice is your EQ. You get all the sounds going at once with no phase issues, and hit record. Sure you edit 20 takes of vocals down to 1 and use that on top of the band, so what. The rhythm section and sound of the band all happened with a single feel and continuity that can't fully be replaced.
 
The above scenario is what I specialized in for 5 years using ADAT's, Grace and Avalon preamps, and an O2R. I was a tracking house. Most bands went elsewhere to mix, but I was hell on wheels with mic placement, punch ins, and getting good takes out of bands. The most important tool is getting the mic running through isolating headphones, then placing the mic while listening to it. an SM57, Coles 4038, and a Sony C800 can really capture most anything. I had many more mics, but those three were my work horses. I didn't have any Neumanns at the time. The sony was a fluke that I had it.
 
For anybody buying Mics get at least one Dynamic, one Ribbon, and once Condenser. A small an large of each flavor also really helps.
 
Now I'm down the path of finishing up a new system and wanted to get others involved with feedback over time. I thought this would be a great place to talk about ITB vs Digital hardware vs Analog. The new system started out as an electronic drum set and is about to become a 24 input studio + MIDI. The hart of the system is SSL Alpha link AX w/ black lion mods and clock, an MX4 card, a summing mixer, 2x96 point patch bays, 8 channels of hardware effects/compressors.
 
 
 
 

Recording/Mixing skill >>>>>>> hardware (past a certain, but low point).  CLA and Pensado and [name your favorite engineer/producer here] can record/mix excellent sounding songs on prosumer equipment (what we typically have in our studios.)
 
The equipment/software rabbit hole is one that we often fall into, but it generally does not lead to better quality results for hobbyist or semi-pro musicians/engineers.
 
Monitoring environment is (moitiors and room treatment/design) is much more important.

i run almost every signal i record, thru at least two analog pieces of gear before it hits convertors.
 
tube mic pres, dbx compressor.
 
so, i'm big on analog.
 
this has more to do with vibe, character, and coloration, than it does with fidelity.
 
it actually makes things a bit harder to do, unless you know what you are doing.
 
but if you have the skills to bring a clean signal into a digital environment, and apply plug'ins correctly,
it's all good.

that's why i've always thought that it was important to have at least one quality piece of analog gear,
to avoid total sterility.
 
i'd much rather get the character happening BEFORE it's converted into zeros and ones

batsbrew
i'd much rather get the character happening BEFORE it's converted into zeros and ones

It's always been best to "get the sound right" on the way in...
That's something that'll never change... regardless of how much technology progresses.
 
Off topic alert:
That reminds me of something we've been dealing with recently when playing live.
With the proliferation of quality/affordable digital consoles, some engineers want to use EQ/dynamics/etc... just because it's there.
At a show a few months back, we had an engineer who kept wanting to sound-check and tweak our main guitar player's sound.  This went on for almost 40 minutes.  I finally put an end to it (annoying to all involved - especially patrons).  Daryl is a good player... playing a nice guitar thru a nice tube-amp/cab.  If the engineer is doing much more than using a high-pass filter, he's messing up the tone.  We no longer use this engineer.