Why Analog Is Better
-
That's not his only argument.
In one of his arguments -to use the car analogy - you have a car that lasts fifty years and still works vs. a car that lasts less than ten years, and has to be replaced with another car.
Secondly, the fifty year car uses common parts with cars from the same era and is compatible in some ways with newer systems vs. the new car which has no new parts available.
@Jolly said in Why Analog Is Better:
In one of his arguments -to use the car analogy - you have a car that lasts fifty years and still works vs. a car that lasts less than ten years, and has to be replaced with another car.
Analog signals start to deteriorate the moment it is recorded. No such thing as perfect preservation or perfect reproduction with analog.
Digital is the one that allows perfect reproduction, and through that, perfect preservation, in theory indefinitely.
-
In theory.
In practice? Ten years before the next digital media?
-
@Jolly said in Why Analog Is Better:
In theory.
In practice? Ten years before the next digital media?
I remember reading a statistic that claimed that the audio market only supports two mediums at one time.
78/45
LP/45
LP/8-track
LP/Cassette
Cassette/CD
CD/Streaming
I'm sure there are minor variations, but you get the idea.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Analog is wonderful audio source medium so long as you have the hifi equipment that has the technical ability to bring out its magnificence. That costs plenty of $$$$ or ££££ or €€€€. A moderately priced digital format and system can attain a similar quality of consistent sound at a much more affordable price.
I find ironic that bunch of over 60 old men can argue about this let alone tell the difference. I have met maybe one person who regularly dropped by the hifi audio store who allegedly could, but then he owned a McIntosh hifi system with Harbeth speakers and accesssories that
was worthcost him $100 k. -
Analog is wonderful audio source medium so long as you have the hifi equipment that has the technical ability to bring out its magnificence. That costs plenty of $$$$ or ££££ or €€€€. A moderately priced digital format and system can attain a similar quality of consistent sound at a much more affordable price.
I find ironic that bunch of over 60 old men can argue about this let alone tell the difference. I have met maybe one person who regularly dropped by the hifi audio store who allegedly could, but then he owned a McIntosh hifi system with Harbeth speakers and accesssories that
was worthcost him $100 k. -
For digitized information, storage is storage.
You can even upload it into the "cloud" and let someone else worry about changing storage media.
@Axtremus Once in The Cloud you are at the mercy of The Cloud.
-
@Jolly said in Why Analog Is Better:
@Axtremus Once in The Cloud you are at the mercy of The Cloud.
"The cloud" = "Somebody else's computer."
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@Jolly said in Why Analog Is Better:
@Axtremus Once in The Cloud you are at the mercy of The Cloud.
"The cloud" = "Somebody else's computer."
-
@Jolly said in Why Analog Is Better:
In theory.
In practice? Ten years before the next digital media?
I remember reading a statistic that claimed that the audio market only supports two mediums at one time.
78/45
LP/45
LP/8-track
LP/Cassette
Cassette/CD
CD/Streaming
I'm sure there are minor variations, but you get the idea.
@George-K said in Why Analog Is Better:
In practice? Ten years before the next digital media?
I remember reading a statistic that claimed that the audio market only supports two mediums at one time.
78/45
LP/45
LP/8-track
LP/Cassette
Cassette/CD
CD/Streaming
Famously incorrect words, but it’s hard to see how it’ll ever change from streaming (data). Instantly play any song on any device.
-
@Jolly said in Why Analog Is Better:
@Axtremus Once in The Cloud you are at the mercy of The Cloud.
"The cloud" = "Somebody else's computer."
@George-K said in Why Analog Is Better:
@Jolly said in Why Analog Is Better:
@Axtremus Once in The Cloud you are at the mercy of The Cloud.
"The cloud" = "Somebody else's computer."
At least you have that option.
You can even upload to multiple “clouds” so no one single cloud provider can cut you off. -
Well, somebody else’s computers, backed up many times, and replicated, and stored in extremely stable, cool, and protected environments.
But yes you’re right. The cloud is just another computer(s).
@89th said in Why Analog Is Better:
Well, somebody else’s computers, backed up many times, and replicated, and stored in extremely stable, cool, and protected environments.
But yes you’re right. The cloud is just another computer(s).
Photobucket.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
I hope no one used photobucket thinking it was their primary storage solution.
I can't speak for others, but I have my data backed up in the cloud via OneDrive, and I sometimes make a backup onto a physical hard drive (SSD). That being said, and I know this is tempting the data gods, but OneDrive (microsoft) or Amazon... they are statistically 99.9999% safe from losing your data, ever.
-
@89th said in Why Analog Is Better:
Well, somebody else’s computers, backed up many times, and replicated, and stored in extremely stable, cool, and protected environments.
But yes you’re right. The cloud is just another computer(s).
Photobucket.
-
I think that without any questions, digital is better. Change is always tough - there were probably people who were upset when Tomas Edison was recordings were replaced.
But the concern (for me) with digital, is that I am pretty sure that everytime you re-save the data, there is some loss of bits/bytes. It may be very very small, but my guess is that you do not get a 100% accurate copy.
-
I think that without any questions, digital is better. Change is always tough - there were probably people who were upset when Tomas Edison was recordings were replaced.
But the concern (for me) with digital, is that I am pretty sure that everytime you re-save the data, there is some loss of bits/bytes. It may be very very small, but my guess is that you do not get a 100% accurate copy.
@taiwan_girl said in Why Analog Is Better:
But the concern (for me) with digital, is that I am pretty sure that everytime you re-save the data, there is some loss of bits/bytes. It may be very very small, but my guess is that you do not get a 100% accurate copy.
Nope. Bits are bits. Either they're transmitted or they're not - that's the definition of digital. The idea of a "checksum" is to assure that everything on one side matches the other. I don't know enough about recording tech, etc. to be 100% certain, but I'd bet good money (and a lot of it in this case) that some kind of assurance exists to be certain that what's on one end of the wire matches what's on the other end.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Why Analog Is Better:
But the concern (for me) with digital, is that I am pretty sure that everytime you re-save the data, there is some loss of bits/bytes. It may be very very small, but my guess is that you do not get a 100% accurate copy.
Nope. Bits are bits. Either they're transmitted or they're not - that's the definition of digital. The idea of a "checksum" is to assure that everything on one side matches the other. I don't know enough about recording tech, etc. to be 100% certain, but I'd bet good money (and a lot of it in this case) that some kind of assurance exists to be certain that what's on one end of the wire matches what's on the other end.
@George-K said in Why Analog Is Better:
Nope. Bits are bits. Either they're transmitted or they're not - that's the definition of digital. The idea of a "checksum" is to assure that everything on one side matches the other. I don't know enough about recording tech, etc. to be 100% certain, but I'd bet good money (and a lot of it in this case) that some kind of assurance exists to be certain that what's on one end of the wire matches what's on the other end.
Yes. If you use a (well-designed) checksum as a mechanism to check and offer assurance that what's on one end of the wire matches what's on the other end, then the probability of failing to detect a mismatch is "one in (two to the power of the number of bits in the checksum)." E.g., if you use even just a 32-bit checksum, the probability of failing to detect a mismatch is about one in four billion.
Other techniques exist to (1) allow errors to be corrected on the receiving end, and (2) retransmit signal that was found to be erroneous. Many systems use combinations of techniques to reach the desired level of accuracy/correctness for the target application given the underlying physical media.
