So, I’m tuning around my new TV checking the difference between the analog channels and digital. Digital is so clear it feels like you’re there, and I tune to an old movie I didn’t recognize. It’s some Victorian setting in England, it had a distinctive film lookâ€â€old from the 1960s or so, and I’m switching back and forth between the digital channel and the analogâ€â€back and forth, back and forth. I’ll be darned if I didn’t like the analog better. I liked all the other digital broadcast stuff, sports, news, interviews. Why did I prefer the analog in this case? I’m sure there are a lot of subjective factors to my responseâ€â€subject matter, moodâ€â€mine and in the storyâ€â€the list goes on and on. And I’d be on shaky ground trying to make a rule out of this one experienceâ€â€after all I’m watching analog on a big screen Bravia for God sakes! The analog seemed warmer, more friendly. The digital was very clear, very accurate, very, I don’t know, I didn’t like it. But maybe there’s something else hereâ€â€something we haven’t thought of or considered before. Maybe it’s that digital is foreign--as in unnatural.
This experience reminded me of a recent radio news story. It was about how the sale of vinyl LP records is steadily increasing every year. Audiophiles insist that the sound from LPs has never been matched and is superior to digitally reproduced music. Again, it seems that would be very subjective statement. But they also make another argument which is that the human brain works in an analog fashion. Is that true? Hopefully the news reporter got some credible sources for this. I hadn’t heard this before. Anyway, the audiophiles say the human brain has to constantly adjust to the digital sounds, digest them if you will, and translate them into analog. Has anyone heard this before? And then today I heard the White House has a LP collection of over 2000 records which have been donated by record companies over the years. So, the government spends millions and millions of dollars to switch over to digital, but has a hoard of LPs in the basement at the White House all the while saying digital is better. Very interesting.
So, here’s the thing. Let’s just say this is true. The human brain works in an analog way. I’m not saying it’s true or even has any real impact in all this. I’m not advocating this idea. But let’s just say the audiophiles are correct. Would it then also be true for visual media? It’s probably safe to say that most people on this forum appreciate the film look over that of digital. Film is most often preferred. What if the reason for this preference is not so much a subjective preference, but more objective, rooted in human physiology. Maybe it’s just that analog is not just so foreign, or unnatural, if you will, as digital, and that analog is easier to assimilate. When I look at digital it feels to me like I’m looking at synthesized people, and objects. It doesn’t look real. It’s too crisp and clean. Maybe that’s because it is too crisp and clean. It’s not natural. It’s weird. But its not the look--the visual appearance, but rather its that I’m not assimilating the digital experience as well as analog. I can connect to analog better and it seems more comfortable more full.
This really would change everything. It means digital could never attain to the analog film experience. It would not be a matter of increasing resolution, or matching intensities along color gradients, putting grain back in to imitate film, etc. Digital can’t be analogâ€â€end of story. Decisions to use digital become more a matter of economics, cost efficiency, convenience and such. The question is this: Is Analog Better?
So, again, I’m not really saying any of this is true. In fact it might just be LP manufacturers trying to drum up more business. I’m just innocently asking questions here.
Curiously,