[HAM] Anital: was (New B-3)

[John Freund]

I, too, used this same argument to bash Digital.  But the logic is being
applied in the wrong and place and well, logic is irrelevant.

Analog is an approximation, too.  It's an analogy (hence, the name), not the
thing.  (Consult Lotman and Magritte for further exploration of that line of
thinking.)  Except instead being scattered by an algorithm among scads of
1's and 0's it's scattered via electro-magnetism among scads of charged
metal particles.

What is KEY is how your BRAIN puts it back together (that's where all the
magic happens and relevant logic disappears), and what it finds pleasing to
hear.

And while you might think that analog sounds better and is more complete NOW
(right after you record something), I'd bet you'd find the digital recording
more complete decades from now after time has reoriented some of those metal
particles.

There's more I could say but, eh, I think I'll go listen to some vinyl.  The
scratchier, the better.

/John

> Don't apologize, I appreciate the debate, not sure about this group tho,
> because this topic has been run ragged in most audio groups.
> 
> I'm still standing here with my arms folded tho, saying approximation.
> The understanding of the sample error "leftovers", and the pattern/profile
> they take on allows further reconstruction of upper harmonics to a point,
> but again it's an algo.  This type of predictablility has allowed us to go
> beyond sampling, allowing modelling.