The analog vs digital debate will probably never truly die, but hopefully more people will come to understand that all the vintage analog gear in the world will not fix "you suck":
 
http://therecordingrevolu...-analog-console-mixes/

Cool article.

I wonder what would have been said if there was one analog mix and four digital-in-the-box mixes and the analog mix won. 

I do believe analog gear has plently of value and life left to it but I think it is more of a nostalgic  attachment to a particular sound rather than a quality difference at this point. Film is going through a similar transition where digital is cheaper and in some areas exceeds film, but diehards swear by immeasurable mysterious qualities most people cannot perceive. 

drewfx1
I wonder what would have been said if there was one analog mix and four digital-in-the-box mixes and the analog mix won. 

I'm sure the manufacturer of that console would have put out a nice article for someone to post. 

drewfx1
I wonder what would have been said if there was one analog mix and four digital-in-the-box mixes and the analog mix won. 

I more wonder what your response would have been if that was the case.

bapu

drewfx1
I wonder what would have been said if there was one analog mix and four digital-in-the-box mixes and the analog mix won. 

I more wonder what your response would have been if that was the case.

Prolly wouldn't be any response. I have no problem with people who subjectively prefer analog for it's idiosyncrasies. I rather enjoy some of them myself.

drewfx1

bapu

drewfx1
I wonder what would have been said if there was one analog mix and four digital-in-the-box mixes and the analog mix won. 

I more wonder what your response would have been if that was the case.

Prolly wouldn't be any response. I have no problem with people who subjectively prefer analog for it's idiosyncrasies. I rather enjoy some of them myself.

The point that's normally missing from these type of debates is that if the producers of, say, Dark Side of the Moon or even late Beatles had access to modern DAW technology, I'd be willing to bet they would have embraced it without a moment's second thought.

dmbaer

drewfx1

bapu

drewfx1
I wonder what would have been said if there was one analog mix and four digital-in-the-box mixes and the analog mix won. 

I more wonder what your response would have been if that was the case.

Prolly wouldn't be any response. I have no problem with people who subjectively prefer analog for it's idiosyncrasies. I rather enjoy some of them myself.

The point that's normally missing from these type of debates is that if the producers of, say, Dark Side of the Moon or even late Beatles had access to modern DAW technology, I'd be willing to bet they would have embraced it without a moment's second thought.

I don't know if that is to be quite honest. That might have cherry picked certain abilities but I bet most would have preferred the old way. Elton John for instance has said that the record making process has slowed down because of tech.

the writer misses the most important part.  This was an A-list band and the tracks most likely were recorded in A rooms w/ first-choice mics and the rest of an A analog front end.  If you get that right it matters a whole lot less if you mix it analog.  It is already stamped ANALOG in big red letters. 
 
People say it all the time - if you get it right in tracking, a song practically mixes itself.  You still need skill and experience, of course, but it makes it so much darn easier.  I'll take good analog tracking over a great analog mixing situation. 
 
Which is actually good news for the home recordist.  You may need to have some decent equipment and invest a whole lotta time.  But you can get excellent mixes at home.  In the box.