Haha - here we go again - another argument looms...
So allow me.
How exactly does digital 'sound bad'?? All my remastered copies of
Zeppelin's entire works - digitally restored, originally from analogue
- sound better than ever!
Analogue sounds good but deteriorates over time if not 'looked after'
and is subject to deterioration by physical elements unlike digital
recordings. Yes, HD/Digital recording is subject to unrecoverable data
loss - so what do you do if you lose your analogue masters then???!
What's the difference?? You either have it or you don't. Analogue or
digital. At least if you make a copy of something digital the quality
is better than copying analogue.
Besides, digital is just easier to handle, store and use. Even if it
was somehow *proven* that analogue was better than digital - I doubt I
could be bothered sat around chopping up bits of tape and splicing it
back together to write music or make recordings.
Personally I'm looking forward to COMPLETE wireless technology so I
never have to untangle another wire or piece of tape AGAIN.
On 8 Nov 2004, at 18:20, qwerty wrote:
quoted 3 lines I know this ain't answering your question, so sorry for that, but why
> I know this ain't answering your question, so sorry for that, but why
> not send a CD-R?
> It's the digital millenium ffs!! :)
Fuck the digital millenium! :-)
Here are some facts about why HD/Digital recording sucks:
- It sounds bad
- It is subject to unrecoverable data loss
- Archiving is extremely dangerous
Here are some facts about why Analogue recording is superior:
- It sounds good
- Unrecoverable music loss occurs only upon the total destruction of the
medium
- Archiving is excellent
more on
http://www.irdial.com/madness.htm
RAVE ON!