Ah, now I’m a “conceited capitalist” - it’s the car, right?

My car in the avatar gets to all you “little people” eventually.

By the way, there is no one common sound that defines analog gear, and yes, there’s no such thing as “analog sound”.

Just to we’re back on track.

No, it is you, genius.

...and you are going to present the peer reviewed evidence for that assertion when?

It’s easy, sound cannot be an analogue of itself, sound is just, sound (as interpreted by our brain.) Like a rose, a sound wave, is a sound wave, is a sound wave.

If you don’t believe me, research sound waves - the onus is on you to “prove” for your own edification, that there’s something unique called “analog sound”. This would require a belief that sound waves somehow miraculously transform themselves into something else when representing playback from, say, an analog synth.

Once you realize there’s no such thing as analog sound, you’ll likely move onto the next argument, which is “the characteristics of the sound of analog equipment” - in which case you might be on better ground, which was where nat was trying to take you before you went ballistic and ruined the discussion with your temper tantrums.

I am afraid this post does not qualify as a double blind peer reviewed scientific article and even less as evidence in any scientific sense. What was the name of that university of yours, you say?

I couldn’t find one that supported or negated “analog sound” .... it would seem if there were such a thing it’d be easy to find.

Anyway, this has gotten boring, it was fun watching you explode, but it’s time to move on to other things.

There are a number of analog summing threads running concurrently, you might have some fun over there

So no evidence, and yet you and your university "know" to an extent where you take a patronizing attitude towards people who claim there IS a common denominator, a signature sound of analog synths. The same way Trump just knows about voterfraud?

What an academic you are...and your "university"

Dudes... really ?

I bow out when people in a thread start getting obsessed with “butts.” At that point I’m just in the zoo watching the monkeys sling poo. But I return when they’ve calmed down again.

Nope, no evidence that there's a separate and distinct soundwave just for analog and only reproducible by analog instruments and gear of all kinds.

I can easily find distortion, wow, flutter, crosstalk, hiss, noise, and more artifacts that appear as part of the sound lexicon, but none of those are germane only to analog gear.

Most universities agree, except perhaps UMT.

I have to admit to enjoying a good fight, but when it becomes like shooting fish in a barrel, i actually feel bad for some of these people. Still, I feel it's important to stop the misinformation.

Increasingly, I wonder. H. G. Wells' Time Machine may be prophetic, except for the time frame he thought it would take for it all to disintegrate.

double

Are you really going to try to turn your lack of evidence against the challenger too?

Me: Prove to me that there is no one analog sound as you claim.

You: There is no proof that there isn't, ha!



What an utterly pathetic performance from a self-declared academic. I do not think it is funny anymore, but as sad as any the last years abuse of science, including denials of global warming, massive misinfo about voter-fraud and piles of pseudo-science on the net.


You only have to STFU to do that, my conceited little clown.

Really? More facts without evidence?

If you cannot prove anything, I recommend you to shut it now, for my next saying to this is probably going to hurt so much that you will get depressed and suicidal.

How about now? Better?

You read my mind.
Earlier today i wanted to quote myself to retract that statement, but i decided not to.

A few words about analog vs digital from Jean-Michel Jarre. (Begin 5:09)

And on that bombshell, think it’s time to finish up! Thanks everyone for their positive contributions to this epic thread. Happy holidays!