The best thing about a forum such as this is that each of us can read the posts, and then decide if we want to participate in a thread. No-one's time is actually wasted, and all participants will have a lively interest in the subject by the very nature of their choice to chip in. Points of view contrary to our own are potentially very valuable, and I have to admit enjoying a bit of controversy on occasion... =]

I take great pleasure in the "low-rent" approach to audio, because it just seems like so much more fun than throwing money around and hoping for the best. Plus, it just ticks me off when I see some company promoting a superfluous bit of software or hardware as "must have" and fabricating all kinds of data to back up its claims.

Some folks love shiny toys with impressive specs and nifty doo-dads attached - and I'm no stranger to this feeling what with the decidedly bourgeois guitars I favour. As long as they know their gear and get the results it promises, I say, go for it!

ROG has submitted an example of a situation where we could more accurately establish the baseline requirements of a particular group of audio chores, and I think this is a worthy discussion. If we have a good grasp of how little we really NEED to accomplish a task, then each of us can decide how much "overkill" we want to indulge in to suit our personal taste.

just looking for clues...
Oren.
http://www.masteringmatters.com