My reason for suggesting this path is this:

It costs a little more, but not an unreasonable amount more.

You'll be using fully professional equipment that's designed to not
break very often, but which can be serviced when it breaks, and it's
old enough so that it's had all the upgrades it will ever have.

Yeah, but some of these machines can be a bear at times. They can eat your
wallet if things break. Keep in mind I'm not saying it's a bad idea, though.


People working in most forms of music production strive to get a
"warm, full, analog sound." There's no better way to get it than with
analog equipment. They may learn that this is not really what's most
important to them, but they'll never know until they try the real
thing.

I think the "warm analog sound" is overrated. Nothing beats a good mic on a
good source with good electronics in the signal path.


It can be easily integrated with digital tools where that's
appropriate.

Having a limited number of tracks and (due to media cost) a limited
number of takes changes the way you work, often in a positive manner.
It makes you think about where you're heading rather than always
wondering if you're there yet, or if you should add one more part.

An analog tape machine never stopped anyone from adding too many parts :-)


How bout some good
outboard pre/ converters and a computer?

Sure. Anything you can afford.

Add a used d8b and stir well.

If your production life centers around full automation, then this
might not be such a bad choice, but there are a lot of trade-offs (in
both directions).

I was thinking of having actual controls (even though there aren't enough
knobs for me) and taking some of the load off the CPU, but the automation
angle is a good point. I find that with a computer feeding tracks to the
console, I have to use less automation because I have so much control in the
computer. I really like actual faders, even if they are only for controlling
the DSPs in the console. The talkback section and monitoring in the console
is worth the ticket price, IMO. You also get the HUI control, which really
makes the computer act like a tape machine.

In article writes:

Yeah, but some of these machines can be a bear at times. They can eat your
wallet if things break. Keep in mind I'm not saying it's a bad idea, though.

Thing is that other than routine maintenance like cleaning and
alignment (which only costs time, and not a lot once you have all the
tools and know where all the adjustments are located) you only fix
them when they break. With computers, we're constantly "breaking" them
with updates, and spending money on software upgrades, plug-ins, and
the like. We do this because it's necessary in order to maintain
supportability for the system.

I think the "warm analog sound" is overrated. Nothing beats a good mic on a
good source with good electronics in the signal path.

I agree. But it's hard to change opinions with common sense.

An analog tape machine never stopped anyone from adding too many parts :-)

In theory, no, but after the first bounce people start worrying about
generation loss. It's a powerful deterrent to anyone who wants to
"make professional recordings of my music at home" but it's also a
powerful tool for those willing to learn how much they can get away
with.

I was thinking of having actual controls (even though there aren't enough
knobs for me) and taking some of the load off the CPU, but the automation
angle is a good point. I find that with a computer feeding tracks to the
console, I have to use less automation because I have so much control in the
computer.

The big advantage of the console in this situation is that you have
instant storage and instant recall of static conditions without a lot
of fooling around. For people who work on a dozen projects at once,
most of which take a year or more to complete, it's easy to call up a
snapshot and have all your routing, basic EQ, and monitoring set up
right on the console. When it comes to things like smoothing out level
within a track, or goosing up a swallowed syllable or note, doing this
on the computer rather than letting the console bump a fader every
pass is almost certainly quicker and may also be more accurate.

But when it comes to just pushing up the faders and getting a rough
mix using your ears and musical talent, nothing beats a console. You
can "normalize" that mix, store it as a snapshot, and then start
tweaking on the computer. If there's a smooth fader ride that you find
works well, you can do that on the console and have it remembered. Or
if you have the console set up to control levels in the computer, you
can do that and have the computer remember it. However that usually
means having to move over to the computer and push some buttons or
select some items from a menu, and that may break your workflow at the
console.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo