gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
This is an important point. Music requires an audience (even if it is only the person creating the music). Every listener is different, and will exercise different preferences. Each listener is entitled to his or her own preferences, and no-one can declare that someone else's preferences are wrong. I have no problem with someone stating that they prefer the sound of analog over digital, even though I don't. I have no problem with someone stating that they think digital sounds 'harsh', even though I don't think it does.
However, I do get disturbed when people use their preferences as a measure of choice superiority, e.g. "I like analog (or digital) because it is better." This often is circular: "Why is it better?" "Because I like it." Sometimes the answer is along the lines of "because it sounds 'warmer' (or 'cleaner')." These answers head back into preference territory, the equivalent of "I like it because I like it", and can't be contradicted.
For something to be regarded as 'better', where 'better' is more than just an expression of opinion, requires a more objective measurement of what 'better' is. For example, a signal to noise ratio, or a frequency response graph. Measurements such as these are not determined by preferences, but by devices such as 'scopes'.
There are two main points here: an objective measurement of technological 'betterness' does not mean that for any particular listener, the result is subjectively better. The corollary is that a subjective measure of 'betterness' does not mean that the technology is better. I think that most of the analog versus digital debate is the result of confusing the subjective and objective, and using one to prove the other.
then it's a design flaw.
