You're viewing a single thread.
Most musical instruments are analog. Digitizing them is inherently lossy. I mean, it doesn't matter, you can get both digital and analog recordings that are orders of magnitude more accurate than human hearing, but claiming that analog is more inherently lossy than digital is just factually incorrect, unless the music is produced purely digitally. Including no human voices, because those are analog.
Analog is inherently lossy due to the materials and playback method. Vinyl records sound different when they are dusty.
Digital is inherently lossless because the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem guarantees that, given a sufficiently high sample rate, all information from the original signal is preserved.
Vinyl sounds different per use, since it wears out.
Your speakers are analog. They sound different when they are dusty. Your ears are analog. Things sound different when you have dirty ears. Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem only applies when there are no frequencies outside of the sample range, which doesn't happen in real life. None of this matters, because like I said it's trivial to have orders of magnitude more accuracy than you need. Digital is just way cheaper to copy accurately, so that's why it has become dominant, and that's fine, but the idea that it's inherently more representative of reality is just gibberish.
It is inherently more representative of reality. Measurably so. Vinyl doesn't and cannot have the same dynamic range as digital.
You know that vinyl is not the only way of recording analog information, right?
There is also cassette tapes, reels, wax cylinders, laser discs... Analog supports degrade over time. Digital files do not.
Digital storage devices have way shorter lifespans than analog ones. Digital information can be more reliably copied, but we are constantly losing massive amounts of information to digital storage loses when it falls out of public consciousness. If no one is actively copying it, it is doomed in the digital age. We still have analog storage that's good enough to be useful from thousands of years ago.
Digital files have checksums. You literally know when something has changed and you lost information. And then you have error-correction on top.
How do you think that is in any way even remotely relevant to what I said? If the drive your file is on dies and you didn't copy it to another one a checksum won't help you.
And if your vinyl collection catches fire it also gets lost, what's your point? That's an argument for preservation of storage media, not for intrinsic benefits of analog.
You cannot possibly be this stupid. I refuse to believe it. If you stuff a vinyl record in a cabinet for a century, you'll still have a mostly functional recording. If you stuff an SSD in a cabinet for a decade you'll probably just have a paperweight at the end, and that's comparing 70 year old analog storage technology to the current standard of digital storage. This is a consistent pattern throughout all of history. Analog storage is just far, far more robust to data loss. All the error-correction in the world doesn't help if you aren't actually running that error-correction constantly forever. That is the entire point I've been trying to make this whole time that everyone just keeps ignoring to spout non sequiturs about how digital data transmission works at me.
The analog storage you are referring to from thousands of years ago has degraded substantially since its creation. Yes it's still useful but I wouldn't use that as evidence it's a better medium. Case in point: texts (a digital storage form) from thousands of years ago can be retransacribed to be exact copies of the original (with respect to the knowledge contained within of course) whereas paintings from the Renaissance have changed dramatically due to aging and can never be returned to their original form since the needed data is lost.
What makes you think we are perfectly copying the knowledge contained in texts from thousands of years ago? That is... a bold claim. Even if I were to accept that text is always inherently digital for the sake of argument, the storage medium is absolutely analog. You can use analog storage to store digital data just as much as you can use digital storage to store analog data like sound waves.
One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iliad?wprov=sfla1
Yes, you'll make the argument that the available versions of it are not perfect representations, though that is only because the language and dialect used to produce the work had been lost, the work otherwise remains intact.
Text is a digital format because you have a limited set of characters to represent sounds/syllables. For example: the meaning of the letter 'B' doesn't change if a small piece of the letter is missing or if the letter is slightly tilted, it's still a 'B'. If the format was analog, those changes would also change the sound/meaning of the word.
Okay, it's not really the point I'm trying to make here, but since you bring it up, actually it does matter that we lose the ability to decipher the meaning of digital storage. That is a problem that has only gotten worse.
More importantly, there is meaning in handwriting. We can learn things from how different people wrote the same thing. And people do try to convey subtleties of meaning through drawing the same letter in different ways, and of course, most importantly, you completely ignored the actual point I was trying to make, that even if we ignore that and assume every B is always the same we aren't talking about content. We are talking about storage media. Smearing ink on paper isn't a digital process even if you're literally just writing 1s and 0s. There have been digital ways of storing information for as long as there have been analog ones. Things like beads or knots in ropes. The reason you never hear about them isn't because they didn't exist. It's because all the information they contain has decayed to nonsense. Digital is very binary that way. It's perfectly retrievable until it's perfectly gone. We have a lot of techniques now to help extend that useful life, but they still all require active maintenance, and most digital storage media has an average lifespan in single digit years. Even for digital information, the oldest stuff we still have around was stored in analog ways.
True, but analog cylinders are going to be the ones people after the world burns can find and still listen. I wouldn't count any old CDs play at that point anymore.
Like analog degrades, digital just stops playing.
But isn't live music analogue?
Digitizing is only lossy once*. Analog is lossy every time you copy it and degrades over time.
*Assuming you use a lossless digital format
Not just any time it's copied or generally over time, but each playback can degrade the quality. Record pins erode the channels, magnetic heads affect the strength of the magnetic field they read.
Reads, copies, and time don't (necessarily) degrade digital media, even with lossy compression (time can, but any time it's copied, it resets the clock to as good as the media can give; analog doesn't get that reset). Lossy compression only degrades it on conversion and there's a bunch of control over the shape of that degradation (with the intent of it not being detectable to our ears, though it obviously also depends on the bandwidth available).
That is an actual fair criticism. Well, part of it. All of our current digital media technology actually degrades over time faster than analog ones, but they're so easy to copy that it's not really a problem for things that people like to make copies of. It is a problem for archiving though. I wasn't trying to argue that digital has no advantages. Just that it's not magically better in every way.
But if you lose the information how to turn those bits into music, it is gone forever. That Edison cylinder is pretty easy to play compared to that opus or mp3 file you found from the grave 40000 years from now.
You can sit here and have an argument about Nyquist-Shannon, but it isn't relevant for lots of music made in the past 40 years since it was made or recorded digitally.
If your work was made with a DAW there's no point to analog.
I've got a record from a smaller artist somewhere that I swear has fucking mp3 compression in it, because they don't know how to export their shit like an adult.
The only meaningful difference between them is that digital is cheaper to copy. Your ears are analog though, so everything you've ever heard in your entire life is 100% pure analog, and I explicitly said in the post you seem to think that you're disagreeing with that they're both orders of magnitude better than they need to be.
Nearly all music is recorded digitally, anyway, and has been for a while.
Sure, and there's nothing wrong with that. They're both plenty good enough, and digital is cheaper to copy accurately. It's also actually possible to make a copy of a copy of a copy digitally and have it still be accurate. I wasn't attempting to say we shouldn't use digital, or that it has no advantages, just that the argument in the original post makes no sense.
But there's a difference between converting a JPEG to a PNG and re-compressing a JPEG as another JPEG.
True. I wasn't trying to argue that there are no advantages to digital, or even that we should go back to analog. Just that the argument in the post doesn't make sense.