Wow, very impressed with the bits y'all are tossin' out... I really hadn't thought about it all that much either, until the "newbie" folk in the workshop kept goin' on about it. It got me to do some experiments like milan and this was what I noted:
I personally like the "non-warm" mixes better, whether they're on analog or digital, at least as relates to sound quality. Across the board I liked the "warmer" mixes better from a "feel" standpoint.... there is a difference when you record an out board source at 96khz (even if you later take that down to 44.1, it still sounds - to me - like it's more open than an identical recording originally done at 44.1), small brown spiders can actually crawl inside of S/PDIF sockets, and chocolate and resin look a lot alike in dim light.... just some observations...
Kilo's also got a really good point about the "mayhem mixes." Somethin' I noticed from recording my live sets. I often make a DAT or MD of me live shows, just so I can hear what really went down (I get too absorbed to really tell in the midst of doing it...). What I and several of me cronies noted was my live sets, while sometimes a bit erratic on overall levels, were way, waaaay more "energetic" than if I recorded the same thing in the studio. Now, machines (theoretically) dunna get excited, and it wasn't so much that the lines themselves were more energetic, but the "recording" was more energetic. Now, I'm still going onto a digital medium (in the case of DAT or MD), but the board I use live is a little Mackie CFX12, and I tend to push it as I do a set, so I'm occasionally redlining. When I record in the studio, I'm generally mixing inside the PC or on the 01v, and in either case, I'm watchful about clipping and whatnot...
And Influx, that track we were talking about that I did exclusively through the RS7000, I actually recorded the mix that got sent to the presses, live, one fell swoop, with just a bit of post mix compression to even out things. The label folks totally loved that mix, an' originally I sent them a very clean "studio mix" of the same thing - the hands down "winner" betwixt the two mixes was the "live" one.... Now, on that live take, I actually recorded on the 01v, but as with my live sets, I started off a bit lower on levels and gradually increased them through the track, and yep I did redline it here and there... Now whether it's from the A/D conversion or whatnot, the actual recording that got into the computer never actually clipped, it bumped 0db a lot, but never actually went over (and jest so ye know, I used an Aardvark 24/96 to take the digital signal from the 01v into the PC)....
Now, all that said, there were a lot of bits I recorded using (doing a/b analog vs digital) and I really couldn't tell ANY dicernible difference. Also, just to add to the specifics, allow me to relate the following tale:
In December and January I did a lot of work with Jan Johnston (of "Flesh" fame). Now she was just returning from LA where she'd been working with BT, and when she arrived in Boston she was really excited about the Avalon 737 for recording her vocals. Now I didna have one of these lovely preamps lying around me cage, so we borrowed one from another local producer. We even gave BT's engineer a call to get the settings he used on the Avalon, so we could get close to the sound she got while working out there. We did two songs while she was here that round, got some nice vocals and had some fun working the tracks out...
Now about a month later she got the opportunity to come back to Boston, and we decided to put down vox for two more trax. This time we were without the Avalon as my friend was away for a couple of weeks... so, I just recorded her the best way I knew how, straight into the computer using the Aardvark's powered preamp that's built into the box, no FX, and using the Aardvark's built-in soft compressor as a limiter to keep it from clipping.
Here comes the groovy part. When we were finished with all four mixes (the two with the Avalon and the two without), everyone, including Jan, liked the way her vox sounded better on the non-Avalon tracked songs. Now, dunna get me wrong, I really dig what the Avalon can do, but in all honesty, I'm probably more comfortable going straight into the PC totally dry and clean and then applying compression, EQ, and whatnot after the fact. So, it may have just been my unfamiliartiy with the Avalon that made those mixes sound less musical (or as Jan put it, less velvety) than the mixes we did where I didn't use the Avalon. In any case, the vox on the Avalon mixes sounded more "harsh" and "tinny" than mixes that we did without it. So, to sum it up, a lot of this question has to do with methodology and familiarty with one's tools as much as any real differences betwixt mediums...
Alright, I've ranted enuff for now... but thanks to everyone for the comments so far, it's really filling in the picture for me and it's giving me something a bit more rounded to say the next time I'm doing the workshop...
Peace All