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.
 
 
 
 

Did you check out my last post in the Gain Staging thread in the Techniques area.  Very relevant if you are keen to monitor rms levels through your system.  In fact I would almost say that getting the right rms levels throughout your system will go further towards a great mix even more so than sending audio out to digital and analog processing.  Having said that some really still like analog processing especially on the way in.  Cant argue with that either, I have done it a lot myself.  A really fantastic sounding front end analog pre amp can work wonders on the signal.  More so than sending it out perhaps later in the mix process.
 
There are also some amazing all ITB solutions too.  If you are good you can still do an amazing mix all ITB.  You do need the right plug-ins though.  If you are into working on several projcets a day and have to be able to open things up all the time ITB is also hard to beat.

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.

If money isn't an obstacle, nothing beats the real thing.
A fine instrument, played well, mic'd well, in a great sounding room... will sound better than any sample library.
The same is true with real physical space.  A great sounding (real) room can do wonders when added to an instrument (especially drum kit).
 
As has been mentioned, knowledge/experience trumps gear.
A great engineer can take decent/good gear and produce great results.
A novice can take world-class gear (top to bottom)... and produce poor/mediocre results.
 
It's always been best recording practice to get the sound "right" up front (when mic'ing/recording).
No post processing technique or gear will trump this.
 
I think it's all too easy to obsess over certain detail/s... while forgetting about the bigger picture.
I've known a couple folks who were absolutely obsessive about recording at higher sample-rates.
"No professional would record at 44.1k."
These folks weren't professionals... and they never finished/released anything of a commercial nature.
IMO, They got bogged down in details... to the point where their creativity was stifled. 
 
Much more important than sample-rates, ITB vs. OTB, hardware vs. software, name-brand mics, etc:
The SONG, performance, and arrangement
I love great gear (hardware and software) as much as anyone (ask my wife )...  but if you don't have a great song, the gear is meaningless.  After the song, the arrangement is also important.
A common novice mistake is to pile up mid-range (piano, guitar, keyboards, etc) making it extremely difficult to mix.
Closely related: Feel, energy, that "X-factor" trump absolute perfection.
Music history is full of examples of this.
 
I obsess over gear too...  
In the end, you have to balance that with always keeping an eye on the end-goal.
It really isn't about the gear itself... but rather what you do with it.
 
When listening to the final result, no one (except audio engineers) cares about the sample-rate, the brand of instruments/mics/preamps/EQ/Dynamics, or more generally the gear used to record/produce it.
Great song, great performance, great arrangement is what it's all about.
The end listener will either like the final result... or not.  Kind of brutal to think of it that way.
A great sounding drum track, acoustic guitar track, vocal track, etc can enhance the song/performance/arrangement.
But a beautiful acoustic guitar recording won't (in and of itself) give the tune a strong/catchy hook.
If you've got beautiful individual recordings of guitar, piano, synths, and backing vocals... where they're not arranged well together (frequencies are conflicting/masking one another), you've got a nice sounding "beautiful mess".
 
Did I mention I love gear?   

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.

Great points elegentdrum. I might disagree on some of it lol. I think I'm a real man and I use EQ :) I hear you saying that you shouldn't need to do that. Most mixes I make need at least some.
 
 It sure sounds like your head is in the right place in approaching a mix gig. You have had some experience in getting a good mix in a live band situation. Coming from a situation like that I can imagine that it's difficult to track and mix ITB coming from that analog background. The approach is slightly different, not in concept but in physical layout and use of analog gear .vs digital gear.  You could do much worse than something like Harrison mixbus ITB for mixing. I don't blame you though for considering an analog mix solution. Unless you have a mapped mix controller you can grab physical faders on, a mixing desk is tough to beat. Some here use a combination such as the new Behringer/Midas mixers. Most of those have a separate OS running internal plug-ins so you don't really need the plugs in your DAW ( at least in the tracking stage) unless you like them better.
 
I think a nice preamp to feed it all in with is really hard to mimic in digital systems. Not impossible. You can come so close that you wouldn't likely notice on better ITB solutions.
 
Guys that have all of that expensive analog gear often comment about how they like/dislike certain models. From what I've heard, it's more about the quality of the pre amp and less about using tubes. For some reason the terminology in places like this makes Tubes and analog preamps synonymous. A nice preamp that doesn't have tubes is fine too. Sometimes better. All of this is highly subjective. I personally like a nice clean slightly boosted signal going in. I don't prefer much dirt unless it's an electric guitar maybe.
 
You must  have rich parents or you're pulling in the work like crazy if you're  dropping 50K on studio gear, especially when songs are selling as singles for .99 :) If you're not dropping the big bux you can always do it for less ITB and probably not notice a huge difference.
 
With a good front end audio interface, a decent computer and a tactile mixing solution you can pull it off fairly easily IMHO. 
Here's an old link I found on the subject. Much of it still applies.
http://www.soundonsound.c...10/articles/hybrid.htm

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

The better the input the less problem you have - mixing becomes mixing instead of affecting.  The better the front end the fewer problems you have with capture.  I've been testing the new WA2A opto limiter from Warm.  I've never had much time on another opto hardware unit and it really is nice getting a fat saturated sound that just gets smoother and fatter, thick as Crisco,  when the signal drives it from -2 dB to -8 dB gain reduction.  A real eye opener, or should I say ear opener.  If you like the Cake software version (one of the more respected plug-ins from Cake) you'll love the WA2a.
 
And real men do use EQ, but mostly for cutting not boosting to help the sound squeeze into the mix.  In general, you ain't going to fix an EQ problem in the mix, only ameliorate it.

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.
 

Great comments. I love talks like this. I agree with about every comment here. 
 
EQ. Sure I use it all the time. But I can always strive to do as much of it as possible using mic placement. The less adjustments that are made, the more natural sounding the results.......if that's what your going for.
 
regarding 40 min to tweak a guitar sound....lol. Good things happen fast. Polishing turds takes forever. I would guess that engineer is used to polishing turds and never knows when something sounds right. I would have gone and moved the mic 1/2" or switched mic's before spending more than a few min adjusting a sound.
 
To me, the real fun is exploring sounds with good material and talent. Once those things are in play, it's a blast to find the right mic and front end combination. Training my ear and knowing my gear to the point that can be done fast is what I work for. If you are good, once you hear a source typically you can pick the right mic and front end in seconds. It's the engineers job to keep the everything flowing and not bog down the musician with anything technical. Just get er done right and fast.