Foo Foo?

"despite the presence of The Console and The Human Feel does the 606 studio stuff pretty much fails at being interesting/inspiring music"
Do you even realize what you are talking about.. Every SINGLE track from cut me some slack to Mantra is a masterpiece..

Or that Rupert Neve still has a company making analog mixing desks, and that you can buy one if you want.
Why out of what I regard as utter disrespect the only moment a technician in the person of Mr. Neve himself talks about the technical side of it and even there is cut short by oh-so-funny remarks of the overpresent dave grohl?
Or what actually is so custom about the desk that there is only one made?
Or why you need four fridge sized equipment racks that nobody ever touches during the documentary?
Or if the studio/ the building still exists, since you have to wait for the end credits to find the again overcentered Dave Grohl driving there?
Or why on earth you can advertise a documentary as being "about a studio", and spending at least a third on masturbating on camera with all your cool friends?
Let's face it, this is not about the console, or the studio.
This is about Dave Grohl, his band, and whomever he could invite to make a couple of Foo Fighters B-Sides with people other than Foo Fighters' members.

The sad thing about the analog vs digital debate is that some people think that analog is "better" without even looking into the "why" or "why not". The main problem with today's recordings is that recording engineers or producers use way too much compression in an effort to make the recording sound "louder" and the result is a flat sounding mess where drums and dynamics sound horrible. Also they don't bother to keep the peak recording levels below the point where it starts to clip and all sorts of distortions are evident. No wonder some people think that older recordings that were done properly sound better. It has nothing to do with it being either analog or digital. You can get excellent results using either or a complete fiasco too.

A 24 track analog recording studio is pretty sad actually. I think u mean closer to 128 tracks. And yes they were advanced, and could create great sound, but their equipment was heavy and clunky, and storing and editing music on analog tape is a major fkn chore and it takes up TONS of room.

The digital era brought EASE OF USE, plain and simple. Small little digital waveforms being stored on hard drives. What was lost was a sense of CHARACTER that the analog equipment brought to music. The industry NEVER even knew that it was there until digital played their music back to them without that "warm analog saturation" that is so sought after.

But guess what..digital tools have become so advanced now that YOU CAN get that ANALOG SOUND via digital. Look up Slate VCC, UA's A-800, or Waves Kramer Master Tape, among many others out there, that are impressing and used by audio engineers and producers that were winning their first Grammys when Groehl was still wetting his diapers.

It's true that the home studio revolution has HURT the studio business, but a lot of home studio guys are realizing that it's the ENGINEER that helps make the hits, and there's been a bit of a backlash actually. Just cuz u have a cracked version of Pro Tools and a Radio Shack mic, doesn't mean u can put out a great record, even if you are a talented musician. Room acoustics is another huge aspect, and of the reasons SC was so great, yet Groehl just wanted "the board".

Kinda lame....

Maybe Dave should also complain about how those poor saddle and bug whip makers went out of business because of those dang fangled automobiles.