Analogue vs. Digital...

Since the invention of the digital format there has been an ongoing argument as to which is better, digital or analogue. Hardcore audiophiles will always argue that old vinyl will always be better than digital formats. Old school artists will always scoff at the digital facsimiles or photoshop drawings. And some writers look down on those who "first draft" on a computer, even though in this modern world most of us will have to type drafts for submission.  I am an old schooler and I see the value of first drafting with pen and paper, but thank god people don't have to read that drivel- I would be embarrassed. That being said, in a world of lazy A.I. driven art, music and writing, there is something very important to be said for original analogue. 

The best contrast in this argument is Vinyl versus Digital. My wife and I recently bought some vinyl and a fairly descent record player. I instantly noticed how much better the sound was. I used to be a radio D.J. and I had forgotten how much better certain formats sound. The place I worked had one of the largest record collections on the states, I used to listen to them all the time between sets in the back room. I had forgotten what better quality was. 

It got me thinking about the subject at hand, which is better, analogue, digital, or does it even matter? Lets get started. I will use the record versus digital argument because it really illustrates the difference the best and it's actually not too hard to explain.

The reason so many people love vinyl, other than the fact that it allows them to be super elitist, is that it's the one of the only true lossless formats, digital is not. "What does that mean?" You ask. For all those people who already know what this means, please hold back with the heavy sighs, scoffs and grunts. 

Vinyl records are an actual map of the sound with nothing missing from the map. Sure, they can be damaged, or poorly made, but they are the sound as it was recorded from the master copies. This sound wave has peeks and valleys in all the channels, this is the shape of sound, true to form. These shapes can be recorded in true digital, but they are rather large and no matter how well they are recorded they are still a copy of the real deal, and information goes missing in the transfer. This file is called a ".WAV" file because the shape of sound is as stated, a wave. Most digital players use what is known as an ".MP3" file. This type of file has information missing, this is done to shrink the size of the file for easier storage and less memory consumption to use. A wave is smooth and contains all the peeks and dips, an MP3 only contains the points of change and a general "square shape" the computer then fills in the dots with generic information from the file. Granted it does this very quickly and tricks the ear into thinking it is hearing the authentic work- kind of, a lot of people can hear the difference, I recently discovered that I am one of those people. The more information missing, the more crappy the sound. 

Okay, how does this apply to the arts?

The argument is actually about the authenticity of the work, not the quality, although most artists can respect the quality of a work too. No matter how hard people try to capture that authenticity, they won't do so with a digital work. Too much information is missing. Imagine if you brought a Rembrandt and one of the colors was missing. It would fuck up the whole painting. You would most likely notice the missing information, unless you were color blind, then you would just be left with the uncanny valley feeling. In fact in the art world, the same file that is missing information is known by many names but most commonly a ".JPEG". Photos that look really good are shot in RAW formats. They are huge files that have more of the information included. However, they are still missing little bits here and there, They are not original. The original is always more valuable because it is the work in it's entirety. That's why it's so sought after. 

Writing is a little different here because as long as it can be read the message is singular to the person who reads it. However, when we look at the first editions versus later editions the same argument arrises. The original message is altered and looses some of it's authenticity. Again, in the book collecting world this matters. Most collectors HATE the abridged versions of their favorite works, good examples of this range from the language used to the message purveyed, a single change can make a read take a whole new context. But, here's where the use a digital can make something superior. 

I take this a step further, I write my first copies with the mother of all analogue tools- a pen. Simple, functional, and it doesn't require power to use. However, it's not something I would want to put out there because, and here is the catch, I refine this copy into digital format. Writing it on paper gives me this opportunity, it allows me to polish the work into something that anyone can read, more importantly would want to read. It allows a person to remove those impurities and make something more appealing. Working backwards, if the art is good, a great artist can use a computer to make it better. If a song is amazing, a great musician can make it better on a computer. Yes, it can be improved using digital tools, but it will never be the first, the one, the only, and the most authentic work. 

My final thought are easy to encapsulate with a simple one liner; A mechanic uses a whole toolbox to fix a car, tools are tools, the more we have the more we can do, that being said everyone appreciates a classic." 

Cheers!