crazyface
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Posts
- 380
- Likes
- 11
I don't like the idea of saying that digital is "better" than vinyl JUST because it's more convenient, which a few people here (but not all) seem to be saying.
Why should music be convenient? There's no good reason for it to be. If you make it too convenient, then it's just dead background noise, like it is for television commercials, or for kids with iPods playing at eardrum-bursting levels, or for wannabethugs in their subwoofer-mobiles.
I don't know about all the technical stuff, I won't argue that end of it, though to me it seems that what the data indicates is that vinyl is better in some ways and digital is better in others...but, my point is, you can't say digital is "better" JUST because it's more convenient. MP3's are super-convenient, compressed dynamics are convenient, and no serious music-lover could long endure either of those.
Why should music be convenient? There's no good reason for it to be. If you make it too convenient, then it's just dead background noise, like it is for television commercials, or for kids with iPods playing at eardrum-bursting levels, or for wannabethugs in their subwoofer-mobiles.
I don't know about all the technical stuff, I won't argue that end of it, though to me it seems that what the data indicates is that vinyl is better in some ways and digital is better in others...but, my point is, you can't say digital is "better" JUST because it's more convenient. MP3's are super-convenient, compressed dynamics are convenient, and no serious music-lover could long endure either of those.