An argument for why analog is better than digital

vmartell said:
1.- Let's not dismiss academia like that - most of the knowledge that benefits our life started there. Nor is trying to present a thought out argument automatically pretentious

(not trying to pick a fight here - just disagree a little bit! :D )
Click to expand...
Agreed. (Full disclosure: I’m an academic). I think the issue is that the author is a philosophy professor. He’s outside of his expertise on technical matters, and the criticism here is valid. I’ll admit that I skimmed the post, but I didn’t see much outside of the technical stuff that I disagree with.
 
I think the best approach is to simply enjoy whichever suits you at the time but still keep in my mind that just when you think you have things figured out, either format can surprise you (for the better). In the end it comes down to mastering.
 
vmartell said:
1.- Let's not dismiss academia like that - most of the knowledge that benefits our life started there. Nor is trying to present a thought out argument automatically pretentious

(not trying to pick a fight here - just disagree a little bit! :D )

2.- But I love that you agree on some points ! :D - so - I think of the points made, the gist of it is that the biggest advantage of analogue is not necessarily sound, but the experience. Have to agree with that too. I have the impression that many if not most of us in this forum also do digital and are not necessarily against it. We just prefer the vinyl experience and well, not sure if it sounds better than digital, but surely it sounds different and we prefer that sound.

Thnx!

v
Click to expand...

I'll forego any further snark about academic philosophers but I will point out I am very happy with the analogue sound. I am finding a lot of very inexpensive quality classical recordings in local junk shops (many of which seem virtually unplayed). In terms of bang for the buck there is no comparison between the quality of these records and cheap CDs. This is quite aside from the fact that I have a number of albums that I have never seen in another format.

That being said I listen to CDs too and have quite a few high bit rate MP3s as well. I will probably go with high resolution audio as well at some point (for the right price and if the music offered is to my taste). I am not a format snob- I'm just cheap!:)
 
This article has nothing to do with a comparison of differing mediums of music. It’s about an editor that needs to print an article that says that analog is better to support businesses involved in the revival of vinyl. The material for this article is exactly what people use to say ten years ago and the information probably came out of a ten year old Stereophile magazine. You can not expect to have an honest objective media owned by the corporations. Besides the fact that the article was not written by an audiophile.....
 
Johnny B said:
Agreed. (Full disclosure: I’m an academic). I think the issue is that the author is a philosophy professor. He’s outside of his expertise on technical matters, and the criticism here is valid. I’ll admit that I skimmed the post, but I didn’t see much outside of the technical stuff that I disagree with.
Click to expand...

"Outside of the technical stuff I disagree with":D
 
Probably depends entirely on how you see it all. In general, I prefer LP. There is something about the warmth and naturalness of the sound on the LP. But in the end, it will be that I listen more on digital sources thanks to the simplicity.
 
All you need is a microscope. Look at the grooves on an LP and you'll see a pretty accurate representation (limiting, EQ, other studio stuff aside) of the actual sound waves that were produced in the studio. Good enough for me.
 
This is a very badly written article. For example right away he says “Digital listening formats are immaterial” which is just an awful mess of words. He’s not referring to the format but the music encoded in a digital format. Further the word “immaterial” has a very well established meaning he’s not using. Instead of saying “digitally encoded music has the advantage of being easily stored” the words he chose literally mean, “The format used for digital encoding doesn’t matter”.

Why use such awful language to communicate such a simple idea? And he seems to continue this really poor way of expressing himself throughout e.g. “a human need to consume music“. Why would you think of listening as consuming? Again “consume” is very well established as meaning either literally consume so that the original is used up like eating a sandwich or consume economically as in purchase. Listening is not consuming unless you mean buying. So he’s talking about a human need to purchase music? Obviously not and yet that’s what he says.

This is IMO the exact opposite of “well-reasoned”. I reject the notion that careful reasoning would result in sloppy wording. I believe as others have said there’s a pretentiousness about the wording, and it’s *not* the result of a philosopher’s need for precision given how absurdly imprecise the result is.
 
Last edited:
This is an article from an art / philosophy website. That is why he has whole chapters on "tactile features" "visual features", and "epistemic features" (whatever that means). Can anyone ID his system? Can he really hear a difference in vinyl vs high res streaming with it?
 
Wow that is great to know; records rule again!! They have eliminated pops, cracks, scratches, skips, warps right? Or...tell me again why records are better than CD?
 
Markoneswift said:
It's like arguing whether a shower is better than a bath. The net result is you get wet in both.
Click to expand...

An argument that extends to the visual arts.

A bath:
"The Death Of Marat" (Jacques-Louis David, o/c, 1793) nb: shower would not have the same impact.
upload_2019-12-26_19-18-24.jpeg

A shower:
Psycho (Hitchcock, 1960) nb: a bath would not have the same impact.
 
^^ P.S. I'll steer clear of the film Hot Tub Time Machine and sundry depictions of swimming pools and The Beautiful People of LA in many paintings by David Hockney.
 
ic-racer said:
Wow that is great to know; records rule again!! They have eliminated pops, cracks, scratches, skips, warps right? Or...tell me again why records are better than CD?
Click to expand...

Apparently, in part, because they come in larger packaging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom