|
| quote: | Originally posted by alanzo
I wouldn't go that far just yet. 
|
That's good. Far be it from me to presume that what I do might be a pretext for forcing my preferences on another producer. 
| quote: | Originally posted by alanzo
My primary arguments against software instruments are still valid. I'm spending money for something that isn't really a tangible good. No one wants to buy used software. Even if they do, companies will charge you a fee to re-register. So it's a lose-lose situation. I have all my gear, it's all paid off, I have no significant debt to take care of.
|
Debt free. That's a nice position to be in. Sometimes it is hard to keep myself from pulling out my credit card to satisfy my GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome), but my wife is pretty good at giving me a nice "reality check" when it comes to gear. Once you get a mortgage and a family, your priorities tend to change a bit. 
The way I look at it, I have an "order of operations" when it comes to important parts of my studio. I try to make sure that I invest the most amount of money in equipment that will benefit me in the long run. Hardware synthesis is about number 4 or 5 on that list. The most important thing for me is "can I make good music that labels will want to sign with what I have?" Luckily, the answer has been yes so far.
| quote: | Originally posted by alanzo
I just never knew the software emulations sounded so close. I always assumed they were no where near. The physical instruments are still best for their usability and sound and buying software feels a lot more like wasted money then when I buy a physical item. The upside is they're a lot cheaper ... |
Exactly, why I want to add just a couple of "choice" pieces to my existing setup. I still see myself primarily as a software-based producer, but tactile interface can be incredibly inspiring. That is a quality that is very important that cannot be easily replicated by software, especially when inspiration can something that is hard to come by.
|