Automatic Gainsay wrote:I'm sorry, but I disagree with you.
Don't apologize if you don't mean it.
Automatic Gainsay wrote:To disregard a particular division of instrumentation as valid makes no sense at all.
I'm confused, because this sounds like you actually do agree with what I was droning on about.
Automatic Gainsay wrote:To suggest that people who subscribe to the aspects that define analog sound are "concerned with the wrong things" is pretty outrageous.
I think there's nuance here that was missed. I think that people who get totally wrapped around the wheels about what particular implementation is used (and I'm not only referencing this thread, but so many others like it of late) and essentially dismiss them based on some preconceived notion that 'if it's not analogue, it's s**t' is missing the whole point of making music. There's normal and then theres over the bloody top ("oh my god, if they didn't make this machine with all analogue guts, I'm not even looking at it.").
Automatic Gainsay wrote:Does anyone think digital is inferior anymore? That would be an equally outrageous claim.
Automatic Gainsay wrote:But this constant blathering about the importance of the analog history by Roland while they're making a non-analog device is the source of this discontent. It has nothing to do with antiquated favoritism, it has to do with the fact that the marketing of this device inspires analog enthusiasts and vintage equipment enthusiasts to think they're getting something they're not.
I do agree with you... but I guess I don't respond much to any manufacturer's hype; They're obviously going to hype it as much as possible. Why wouldn't they? We should all be keen to the tricks by now, and savvy enough to see through the marketing bullshit -- and ESPECIALLY in this instance because they've not given a toss about it 'till apparently now.
commodorejohn wrote:What he said.
I'm still waiting for you to become a contributing member to this site.