On the subject of delay, it helps to not confuse delay (distinct echoes) and reverb (random multiple blended repetitions designed to simulate a room sound [in the 480L sense, which is a digital reverb]). The sound of a guitar in a room is reverb. Distinct echoes are delay. If I thought that there were multiple guitars in a room, I would look upon that as a negative aspect, as I would rely on mutlitracking to achieve the same purpose. The delay effect in itself is most apparent in the Roland Space Echo tape units which have a distinct character. When I listens to the Edge's delay sound (given by a TC Electronic 2290), I don't hear the illusion of multiple guitars. I hear an effect, and one that works. The purest, most natural approach for the Edge in these circumstances would have been to track layers of guitars, but he didn't do this. Instead, he evolved his sound using the tools at his disposal. The same can be said of flanging, and chorus, which are time domain effects. John Lennon didn't ask the Beatles to re-record specific instrument parts for Tomorrow Never Knows. Instead, he used tape loops to give the illusion of instruments, and the fact that they didn't sound like 'natural' instruments was the thing that gave the track its character.
Latency, glitching, stability, tracking and speed (whatever that may mean) may be performance issues, but timbre is something completely different and may or may not be performance related. Time and again we hear these terms bandied about by those who think they know what the terms mean. Let me illustrate.
Flanging and phasing are unnatural effects. To say they sound unnatural, is to critisise the nature of the effect itself, and if it sounds unnatural, why use it? After all, the harmonic distortion induced by amplifier circuitry is, in itself, an unnatural artifact. The question is not whether it's natural or not. To ask or suggest this is pointless. The main question is, does it have a place?
We also have this idea that digital sounds 'cold'. Anybody who things this should read Bob Katz book on mastering (I can't remember the title), then read Mixing With Your Mind (can't remember the author), and then do blind listening tests to find out for themselves, rather than relying on their eyes to do their ears work for them. The problem is not with 'digital' but with opinion, and the rather 'trendy' but ultimately unhelpful way in which it is perceived. (Side note) A case in point is the vinyl vs. CD debate. Vinyl cannot contain the same LF content as CD because of the RIAA EQ used when cutting the discs, relying on the EQ of the preamp to do it's work for it, therefore giving a substandard representation. CD is far better, giving a more true representation with a better dynamic range and no analogue compression from the medium, and it just sounds crisper because of the increased higher frequency content. SuperAudio CD sounds even better because less filtering is needed within the audio spectrum, but (personal opinion) doesn't justify the expense for most modern recordings, classical being the main exception. Does this mean the music isn't better? No.
Sometimes the old adages are the best, and must be applied to guitarists it seems, more than to any other instrument player.
Crap in, crap out.
