The Digital Doubt

[Sascha Franck]

But digital feels different and less dynamic.

It "feels" less dynamic? Can you prove it? No. It doesn't "feel" less dynamic to me. Can I prove it? No.
So, that "feels less dynamic" is subjective already. No way to prove it.
Which leaves us with graphs. Something you ignore.

 

[Sascha Franck]

You have provided no evidence of anything at all .

I don't need to provide any evidence. You're the one coming up with statements that needed prove, not me. You don't even get the most simple principles of a discussion.

 

[Eagle]

It "feels" less dynamic? Can you prove it? No. It doesn't "feel" less dynamic to me. Can I prove it? No.
So, that "feels less dynamic" is subjective already. No way to prove it.
Which leaves us with graphs. Something you ignore.

Where are your graphs from verified sources?

 

[Eagle]

I don't need to provide any evidence. You're the one coming up with statements that needed prove, not me. You don't even get the most simple principles of a discussion.

Utter nonsense.

 

[la szum]

 

[dk_ace]

 

[FuzzyAce]

Fwiw, as you may know, I don't give a toss about modeling being 100, 95, 81 or even just 61% true to the original.
And I will as well happily accept that there's still certain differences (whether that's for good or bad shouldn't matter here, both exist).

But it's completely beyond me how some people can come up with weird snakeoil-ish assumptions, followed by some "that's why analog is better" resumes. And as we were at it, claiming that modeled amps would always compress more than their analog counterparts is just that, namely non-provable voodoo. If they were doing this, it could be proven easily. And heck, some defenitely do, such as the GT-1000 amps (just that they don't exactly have analog counterparts). But coming up with some sweeping generalizations is just stupid, simply because it's not true.

Well I don't say tubes or fully analog gear is better for everyone, at most I would say I like it more under certain playing situations for myself. I'm only giving statements based on my personal experiences. Everyone experiences things a bit differently, especially when you tie it in with the emotional connection of making music.
My main point is that they are different technologies that may produce similar results on the surface, yet still respond in specific ways based on their inherent architecture.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Utter nonsense.

Dude, you came up with a thesis. That thesis needs prove, otherwise it's not worth the bytes it's using up.

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

It "feels" less dynamic? Can you prove it? No. It doesn't "feel" less dynamic to me. Can I prove it? No.
So, that "feels less dynamic" is subjective already. No way to prove it.
Which leaves us with graphs. Something you ignore.

Not to get in between you guys, i mean, you could both be right.

But it is kind of interesting that session guys like Tom Bukovac do nothing a difference in dynamics.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Where are your graphs from verified sources?

I don't need graphs because I'm not coming up with any assumptions that needed prove.

 

[Sascha Franck]

But it is kind of interesting that session guys like Tom Bukovac do nothing a difference in dynamics.

Irrelevant. In case there's a difference in dynamics, it'd be scientifically proveable. As easy as that.

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

Well I don't say tubes or fully analog gear is better for everyone, at most I would say I like it more under certain playing situations for myself. I'm only giving statements based on my personal experiences. Everyone experiences things a bit differently, especially when you tie it in with the emotional connection of making music.
My main point is that they are different technologies that may produce similar results on the surface, yet still respond in specific ways based on their inherent architecture.

And let’s face this it

This

Looks better than this

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

Irrelevant. In case there's a difference in dynamics, it'd be scientifically proveable. As easy as that.

Is that a fact?

 

[ian_dissonance]

Ah sick, we’re around to the “it’s harder to play in some situations so it’s better because the tool doesn’t work right in certain situations” argument. Should we all start on acoustic guitars with bad setups so we can work to hard to sound good, too?

 

[ian_dissonance]

And let’s face this it

This

View attachment 36161

Looks better than this

View attachment 36162

No, it doesn’t, lol. One of those things looks like an antique radio and one of those things looks dope AF.

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

No, it doesn’t, lol. One of those things looks like an antique radio and one of those things looks dope AF.

That’s true!

The biggest problem aesthetically are the studio monitors / speakers.

 

[FuzzyAce]

Bottom line, a good player can adapt to either technology.

 

[paisleywookiee]

And let’s face this it

This

View attachment 36161

Looks better than this

View attachment 36162

Not that I'm overly interested in yet another "what's better" argument, but I'm fairly certain music is still an auditory art, for the most part.

 

[FuzzyAce]

Not that I'm overly interested in yet another "what's better" argument, but I'm fairly certain music is still an auditory art, for the most part.

 

[duzie]

Mediocre guitar player here who just got back from jamming with some friends using mediocre gear.
Damn it was fun !
Does anyone remember laughter ?