Is Digital actually better than Analog?

DaVinci or Picasso? Frost or Hemmingway? Pamela Anderson or Ashley Judd, Analog or Digital? Tubes vs Solid State? The questions are very similar. After being in this hobby for over a decade, I have learned mostly that musical presentation is different for everyone. I appreciate that some people on this forum are very well educated and give the formulas for great music but I have come to the conclusion that if I can sit through a whole song and my foot is going with the beat, it is a good system. I dont care if it's a B&K $500 set up or a Wilson Alexander $100,000 set-up.

“Nor directed at your record play[i]ng types.”

Clearly you carry some resentment to folks who listen to vinyl LP’s. I can only surmise your resentment extends to everybody that do not embrace your obviously-flawed theories on sound reproduction, which incidently, is probably the majority of posters on this board.

Which begs the question, why frequent an analogue forum? I cannot for a second think you actually believe we take your theories seriously. Nobody can be that naive ...

Pauly , Pauly pauly pauly,

"go speak to a professional musician and ask him whether they prefer vacuum tube or transistor guitar amps ..."

Guitar players CREATE sound with tubes amplifiers not REPRODUCE sound, fitness to purpose....everything is a nail to you isn't it?

"think digital camera are superior to film cameras."

for about 99% of us there is no substitute, and once again you're looking for style points and like many old photographers they cannot make the switch to the new technology, and some of the things you perceive as limitations of the camera are actually weaknesses in other areas of the developing process. If you would learn to research stuff Paully everything wouldn't be a mystery.

BTW, never seen a LCD Rolex "

Thus they've never been the most accurate watches for keeping time. Style points are not part of the equation but as my slightly upgraded turbo charged Subaru out handles and out runs the best best carberated car refferred to above, one has to wonder when i'm smooching the trophy girl who really has the better car?

If you want style points and esoteric glory Analog is waaaay better than digital in that area. If you're interested in the music and rproducing it with a high degree of accuracy, the line is not so clear.

Caio.

Pauly,

I never said that all new approaches are better than the old. In fact, I never said which approach was better. I certainly never said film is worse than digital camera.

Actually, I was just trying to say that a new approach versus an old approach brings change, which often becomes a highly emotive subject. Judging by your comment,

(you’re obviously quite ignorant).

I was right on...

It is a crime tring to compare digital and analogue!

Go and look up the word "ANALOGUE". You'll get the anwser instantly. Digital is a mere mathematical formula that resembles the original recording.
If a turntable is set up propperly and you have decent records it is the most satisfying experience of ones audio-life! I once also was very sceptical and stubborn.

There is nothing wrong with tubes - it is the output-transformer that is the trouble. But there is tube-amps out there that is absolutely 'perfect' in every way.

Never regard "old" technology to be obsolete!

Kind regards,
Dewald Visser