Syrupdude, I loved your first post. I almost fell off of my seat laughing my ass off.

Okay, seriously though, I have to agree with both sides. While I love the analog sound,
I see nothing wrong with the digital side either. Im a K2000 owner, and I use both analog and digital sounds. And while it would be great to hire my own symphony orchestra, it of course is not possible.
With all of the work that I do both at home and in the studio, the results are quite impressive. I get a nice dance beat going,add analog sounds, alittle orchestral and weird shit, and then real guitars. All put together, the sound is huge and believe me, the average club worshipper is not going to stop in the dance moves and say, "hey thats a real TR-808, or hey hes using a Kurzweil. No, if the music sounds good, thats all that matters. I do confess though that I own a Roland JX-3P, but I took those sounds and put them in the Kurzweil by sampling them. They sound exactly the same.
The Roland is for sale.

What we need are better sampling editor functions, and better filters or effects processors in a workstation. But that would probably put recording studios out of business. There is nothing wrong with analog simulations, and digital. Please be assured
while all of these "new" synth companies are creating analog synth reproductions, other didtal synth companies like Roland, Kurzweil,
and Akai are working on much better advances in technology that will soon blow them away.
As for classical music, Im a big fan as well,
but lets not get too hasty here either. If Bach had the oppurtunity to own a synth that
recreated the sound of a tracker organ or hell, even a hammond, he would be delighted.
Now, instead of having to walk 4 miles to a church to practice, he could put the synth under his arm and take it anywhere. Its how you use the technology that counts.

[This message has been edited by Chris Attison (edited 09-14-1999).]

[This message has been edited by Chris Attison (edited 09-14-1999).]