Originally Posted by mediocrefunkybeat
Bo, I don't disagree that it becomes a mental thing.
That said, I think there are differences with the physicality of analogue mixing that are different from doing it entirely digitally - granted, these can be rectified with a good control surface (usually) but there is a difference even there. It's not something I can objectively quantify - but I feel better doing my mixes on analogue gear.
That's not to say that it's any better though. I know that my computer and the associated software and equipment available to me now would have been considerably more than state-of-the-art even twenty years ago. That's not taking microphones into account, obviously, but the access to gear that is possible now - financially as well as logistically is incredible. It means a lot more rubbish will be produced, but it also means that people like me can do good work with a relatively low outlay. The same is true of your R16 and I've been impressed with those interfaces since I first saw them.
Digital is a superior form, objectively. The quality is better than tape, the flexibility is immeasurably more and everything is much easier - including distribution. I enjoy using analogue, but in a professional environment I wouldn't track or edit using it. I would use whatever is better to get the job done and at the front of the process, it is undeniably digital for the majority of cases. But sometimes I like the old gear.
I understand. I would love nothing better than to physically use a patchbay to route a signal from my API mic pre to a LA-2A tube compressor and then onto a physical 4'x8' metal plate in another room for reverb on it's way to a MCI 2-inch deck running at 30 ips. And then the joy of doing an actual razor blade edit on the half-inch mixdown tape using nothing but a china marker and splicing blocks...and before the actual tracking, I laid down a 60Hz tone for 20 minutes so I can sync that music to an ancient U-matic video deck (an ancient form of SMPTE) - too ;)