> All valid points, but perhaps my original position wasn't clear: I wasn't
claiming that 16-bits is all anyone ever needs, anywhere; I was bemoaning
the fact that so many musicians get on the flavor-of-the-month carousel, and
never really learn their instruments, because they are always selling them
and moving to something with more bits, voices, effects, etc. In a
producing environment, high bit resolutions and additional channels are
often necessary, but that doesn't mean the instruments themselves must
follow suit. Great music was made with the Ensoniq Mirage (10-bit?), the
DX7 (originally 12-bit), and the Poly-800 (not sure of the VCA/VCF bit
depth, but it was very grainy -- maybe, 6-bit?). Also, the same could be
said for even lowly Mini-Korg -- a monophonic instrument with almost no
programming capabilities, and even those were unusual.
Ah, yes, I must have read the beginning of this thread rather sloppily (is
there such a word?). Here I definitley agree (which I also wrote in my User
Equipment Mail list). The quality from a instrument, or any pice of gear, is
relying on it's sonic capabilities and the skill of the person using it, and
not just on tech-specs. A lot of rather low-fi equipment have a unique sonic
character, so cleaner and newer isn't necessarily better. An example of this
from my own rig is the waldorf pulse. Judged only by it's signal/noise
ratio, it's horrible, but judged by its sonic capabilities it's a great
synth (if "programmed" well).
Regards
/Patrik
----
The primary purpose of wings is to prevent flight