Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_iuomjni wrote

[removed]

92

Mk38 t1_iuoxklh wrote

And Kodak can't make film fast enough to meet demand. Everything old is new again. Pretty wacky.

87

impossible2throwaway t1_iuq8vgq wrote

I just saw a kodak display in Target the other day and was like WTF - is this a time warp?

13

Lucky-Carrot t1_iup0g1x wrote

The difference is that analog doesn’t perfectly recreate a digital media so there’s valid reasons to use film or records. There’s no reason to use a digital medium other than the most portable or durable format assuming equal quality of output

12

brickmaster32000 t1_iuq0p59 wrote

You've got a faulty inference there. Digital media being unable to perfectly replicate analog media, which whithin a limited bandwidth it actually can do perfectly, does not imply that it is worse than analog media because analog media has its own set of limitations and distortions that digital media doesn't suffer from.

If your goal is to recreate the actual sound you would hear if you were in the room you are going to be better off with a good digital file. If however your goal is to replicate the sound as it would be distorted by a record and record player then yes, using a record would be the better option.

73

shofmon88 t1_iuqr99q wrote

I wish more "audiophiles" understood this.

19

synthsucht t1_iur1o27 wrote

They understand. Why else do you think tube amps are a thing? Hint: it’s the saturation.

5

shofmon88 t1_iur37aa wrote

Those people do. It's the people that make lossless recordings of vinyl "because vinyl has the highest fidelity" that I'm referencing.

15

TSMKFail t1_iuruk2e wrote

It's silly because in some cases the album is mixed differently for vinyl because you can't go as hard on the bass iirc.

3

jnemesh t1_ius7kcm wrote

And sometimes, the label insists on overly compressing the CD and digital formats, while allowing the artist to have uncompressed audio on vinyl. Red Hot Chile Peppers is a perfect example. Go listen to just about any of their albums on CD, then listen on vinyl. In the end, it's all about how well the album is mixed and if compression is (over) used.

1

LurkerPatrol t1_ius3y6h wrote

Making physical grooves in a platter is considered highest fidelity?

1

shofmon88 t1_iusoywc wrote

Yes, there are people that unironically believe this.

1

Lucky-Carrot t1_iuqsf6e wrote

Yes. But my point is that most audio is mixed digitally these days so analog is actually a deviation from the “intended” sound

0

InfernalCombustion t1_iurdpjv wrote

Audio mastered for analog formats also has a lot of limitations.

Examine the vinyl record for example. Audio is encoded through grooves on a physical surface which is then read by a needle travelling at a constant speed.

Firstly, the physical size of the needle limits what you can decode. You can't have peaks or valleys that are too close to each other, otherwise the needle will just skip over them. You also can't have transitions that are too steep.

Digital actually makes everything closer to "intended" sounds, because you can eliminate so many physical and mechanical factors.

14

Lucky-Carrot t1_iuro534 wrote

that’s incredibly interesting and i never thought about that. this is the kind of comment that makes me love reddit

3

Shillforbigusername t1_iupoefw wrote

I wonder how much longer this is going to matter. For audio, sample rates and bit depths are so high that the only real constraints left are storage space and streaming capacity. I honestly wouldn’t even believe someone if they said they could tell the difference between an analog recording and it’s 192k / 32b transfer.

But I suppose analog will always have a place, though, because analog mediums - whether it’s 2-inch tape or vinyl - color the sound in a way that most people find pleasant, even if they aren’t consciously aware of it.

11

chaiteataichi_ t1_iuqbpni wrote

I think many young people buy records less for the sound quality and more for the physical persistence and meaning an object can provide when so many other experiences are digital and ephemeral.

11

erix84 t1_iuqcyqh wrote

I bought cassette tapes as a kid and then CDs in the 90s / early 2000s... Was born too late to really have experience with records aside from seeing them on my mom's stereo setup and looking at the art on the front.

I think the last CD i bought was at least 10 years ago, don't even have a CD player any more.... Bought a record player and a pair of bookshelf speakers and I'm up to about 10 records with a couple more on the way. Streaming is great on the go and in the car, but at home it's nice to throw on a record i own, you get the album art way bigger than cassette tapes or CDs, they sound unique, and it's just a cool experience i missed out on but am glad they're making a comeback.

8

strikt9 t1_iur75fc wrote

For me it brings back listening to music as a thing you are doing instead of a thing thats on in the background

7

chaiteataichi_ t1_iuqd2xh wrote

It’s also a way to show others your music tastes. People don’t really look through digital libraries (though I do remember scrolling through friends iPods) but records are a great way to share interests in taste

3

fullmetaljackass t1_iuumpp2 wrote

Yeah, that's most of the reason I buy records. I've got a few album frames on my walls and I'll switch up which covers I'm displaying when I want to mix up my decoration a bit.

2

Lucky-Carrot t1_iupugcs wrote

At some point someone will make a digital filter that sounds just like a record

8

TundieRice t1_iuqedzd wrote

These have existed for awhile now, in both tape and vinyl!

6

Sir_Donkey_Punch t1_iupvpya wrote

Was about to suggest the sound “coloring” you get with analog audio devices. Hard to beat the warmth of vinyl, especially if you’re into tube rolling and have a nice set of speakers.

3

whales-are-assholes t1_iuot4vq wrote

It’s why I absolutely refuse to entertain the cynical notion that physical media will ever die out.

24

OldingDownTheFort t1_iurlzk8 wrote

I think that the physicality of the object is as much reason as quality or any other metrics.

People want to own stuff again, not just “a data record in a database somewhere says that I have access to it”.

When you have space to own physical objects, the convenience of fast access becomes less desirable than possessing a concrete object.

6

bahweepgranah t1_iupug1c wrote

This became crystal clear for me on the day Nils Lofgren left Spotify.

3

mix3dnuts t1_iuov7mt wrote

You can't compare an analog media to a digital one. CDs/DVDs aren't coming back.

−12

whales-are-assholes t1_iup23wx wrote

>CD/DVDs aren’t coming back.

Well, can’t come back when they’ve never left…

21

mix3dnuts t1_iup8uto wrote

Define never left when Digital Sales literally blow physical copies out of the water...

1

whales-are-assholes t1_iupoa7t wrote

Sales don’t equate the obsolescence of physical media. Don’t try and move the goalposts.

0

mix3dnuts t1_iuponrj wrote

That's not goalpost moving....just because you can still buy a floppy disk doesn't mean it's not obsolete.

There's a difference between analog (Vinyl) and digital (CD/DVD).

3

whales-are-assholes t1_iupptox wrote

You just used sales figures to prove your point - as if multiple technologies (physical and digital) can’t coexist.

And what happens if say, Apple pulls their licensing agreement? You lose everything you’ve “purchased,” because you don’t actually own the product you purchased. With physical media, you at least own and can access it in perpetuity.

−2

mix3dnuts t1_iupr6br wrote

Wrong, you don't, because you can still download that media and save it on another medium. You do own that "copy" that license gives you access to.

No where did I state multiple technologies can't exist, I explicitly said you can't compare analog vs digital exactly because they are different. Vinyl and other analog mediums will have their specific use case against digital.

When we're talking in the same medium space, sales and use does dictate in common language, obsolescence. We're not talking in absolutes here.

The same advantage you state with physical copies you can have with downloaded copies, because it's all digital, and that's my whole point. Downloaded media can be saved to physical copy for backups if need be. The world we live in now is built for downloaded/over the cloud media, we don't have physical digital readers on the majority of our technology for a reason.

Lastly whatever safety you get from physical medium gets demolished by saving that same -digital- copy on a flash nand drive. More robust & more accessible

2

whales-are-assholes t1_iuprtq9 wrote

>Wrong.

You do know you’re just purchasing a license, right? A license that can be revoked at the behest of the service/point of sale.

1

mix3dnuts t1_iupt2yy wrote

...what does that have to do with what I'm saying. Just like a physical copy, if the makers go out of business or decide to stop selling the product you won't have access to GETTING it anymore. Once you have access, make a copy. I don't need iTunes to playback my already downloaded media.

1

Luce55 t1_iupdzfv wrote

There is one advantage of physical media over digital….you’ll have it even if the digital media giants go dark/close up shop. Even if the electric grid goes down, you can still hook up a wire to a solar panel (simplified example for sake of argument) and play your record player, or what have you. If you have the physical book, you can read it whether you have internet access or not, electricity or not.

There’s something to be said for that.

9

bigsquirrel t1_iuprcxa wrote

I mean if you’re going the solar panel route an MP3 player takes a hell of a lot less energy than record player and can hold more music that you could ever reasonably carry in a physical format. It’s an odd comparison.

3

Luce55 t1_iupy340 wrote

I mean…the original post is about a record player but….sure. MP3 player works as well, better, whatever.

Still, I personally can’t actually find my old MP3 player from a million years ago but I know exactly where my record player is, so based on ease of locating, record player wins lol.

−1

bigsquirrel t1_iupyhjr wrote

Cell phone that plays mp3s? Just pointing out that the advantage of using a solar panels to power a record player is a little odd. As is the tech giants thing. None of that is really a thing. I have copies of my digital music locally and literally have a tiny device on me at all times that can easily be powered with a very small solar panel to play mp3s for days.

1

Luce55 t1_iupz5j5 wrote

I don’t disagree with you; I was merely pointing out that there is still an advantage to having physical media. If you have downloaded your music or whatnot, you own it, and so as long as you have power (unless books - you don’t need power for books) you will always have access to it. But, many people listen to music, watch movies, read books based on subscriptions/rentals. In which case, if, as I said, the services go kaput, you’re SOL on the media you enjoyed previously.

1

willstr1 t1_iuq8ife wrote

Physical and digital are not mutually exclusive. Streaming definitely has its risks but CDs and DVDs are digital and physical and can work as long as you have a device that can play them (just like a record) they also have higher quality (from all quantitative measures) and are more robust physically

1

thatminimumwagelife t1_iupnf0i wrote

I hope they don't come back. I'm saving so much money just buying dvds and blu rays for pennies. Don't go looking for them! That dinosaur tech is not for you, it's for me lol

1