Comment on Does anyone else feel like "analog" stuff is more "tangible"?
circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 15 hours ago
I felt like I agreed with the title, but the logic in the explanation doesn’t hold up for me. I don’t think analog or digital are more resistant to various things that may happen – both are susceptible to their own things.
Where I do agree: I can hold a vinyl record in my hand, and it’s MY copy. Mine has a scratch that makes that noise on track 2. The crackle is specific to mine. It is unique in a way that the Spotify equivalent isn’t.
But put that record in the wrong spot, it’ll warp. Everything dies, just in a different way.
PSA: I am not suggesting equivalence. I’ll take analog all day long and it shocks me that people are willing to pay over and over again to access the same content with digital streaming. But yeah, can’t get behind the logic in the post.
SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
Right a big selling point for digital was the ability to make a ton of copies and not have to physically store it in a file cabinet or something
Back in the day there was a fire where they stored military records and a ton of “permenant” records went up in smoke
Really you need the ability to have both in case one fails
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Ok…but thats not an arguement for or against analog or digital. You’re just making the case for redundancy. You can achieve the same thing by making a copy of analog files, and simply storing the copies in a different place.
NOW if the permanent records burn, there’s a backup. And that’s the point of redundancy.