I had an O2R. I really worked up my chops on that thing. The bad part was that only one channel could be adjusted at once. The good thing was being able to save and recall EQ settings. The cool thing was 16 flying faders, and 32 with the "Flip" one gets used too after a while. Automated mixing was fast on that interface.
The reason I no longer use was the IO and word clock issues (And VHS tapes) of the day. I was using ADATs with optical to and from the O2R. Back then the clock was taken from the first ADAT of the batch. The loss of quality from the mixture of early bad 18 bit converters and a low quality word clock with no color digital mixing really made things hard to get it sounding right. I added to the problem by using high quality colorless preamps....Grace, Avalon.
Years of fighting digital mixing has shown me:
#1 Digital is great for surgical precision, but lacks color. In some cases (soft synth), just allowing the signal to go into analog and back makes it sound like it's supposed to before mixing. Even the digital processes are tuned through an analog monitor of some kind.
#2 Track and mix through a single continuous system. A single word clock master must run the entire system. If you have two sets of converters that sound better each running from it's internals.....deal with it, you can't have everything. Many devices only work well using the internal clock. Using an external clock can (not always) cost the quality of the digital processing it does. In general, get a master and run from it, or try to run from the A/D converters. Computers also like to be in charge.....there in lies the rub.
Digital vs Analog. In general, Up to a point, I want as much analog as I can afford. The point is the tape machine. Digital recording is better than analog. Other than that, I prefer analog EQ, Compression, Effects (Outboard), mixing, to the effects inside the computer.....on average. The cost of time, space, and price go up really really fast for small gains. The bottom line is, the quality is better with analog.