Last year I went on a diet and bought a digital scale to track my progress. One day, after dieting for 2 weeks, I stepped on the scale only to learn I had gained 2 lbs. I got royally pissed and went to the hardware store, where they had analog scales in stock. It’s much more reliable, don’t ask me why, but it is.
Bullshit. I should clarify, however, that I meant that at a sufficiently high sampling rate, bitrate, and sample size, digital recordings can be far better than a CD, but in truth you’d be exceeding MP3 standards at that point and talking about some other codec. For example, Dolby Digital Plus (Enhanced AC3, E-AC3) provides for bitrates up to 6.144 Mbps, which, in combination with modern encoding protocols, totally obliterates any CD in terms of audio quality. So does SACD.
Back to MP3s. You’re obsessed with lossiness, but the reality is that lossiness becomes less relevant at sufficiently high data rates. I challenge you to tell the difference between an MP3 (recorded and played back with a good codec implementation) at 320 kbps and a CD. As I said earlier, most people couldn’t tell the difference even at 256 kbps or even less.
Furthermore, it’s a bit of myth to think of CDs as lossless, since studio equipment will typically use much higher bitrates and sample sizes of 24 bits vs the CD’s 16 bits, so there’s real loss when mastering to CD. This is also true when mastering for vinyl, but in different ways, ways that many find less objectionable.
I don’t know anyone who’s made that claim. I certainly haven’t.
I said that. Not only did I say that, it was one of my major points. Audio engineered for vinyl will often subjectively sound more pleasant to many ears, independent of the intrinsic differences between vinyl and CD. The absence of harshness in the highs is perhaps one of the most frequently noted differences.
There’s a reason why many hospitals and clinics still use the old-fashioned balance beam type of scales.
I can’t. I believe that you can, but I’m pretty sure I can’t. When ipods were new, I ripped a bunch of CDs at several different …sampling rates? Whatever the number was that you could fiddle with. And Then I played them all. And I couldn’t tell the difference. I could maybe, possibly, tell the lowest quality one apart from the others, but to the extent I could, I kinda liked it. It sounded “crisper”. Or maybe that was my imagination.
I mean, I had old records that popped and skipped, and of course I could hear those gross imperfections. But the lack of sound resolution of CDs vs. LPs? Not something I have ever really noticed.
I’m not tone-deaf. But I may be tone-hard-of-hearing. I taste food better than most people, I see color better than most people, (or did when I was young) and hear music less well than most people.
You obviously know someone that made that claim.
The rest of your post is just handwaving and misdirection. I’m not “obsessed with lossiness” - you claimed that a (lossy) mp3 is “better than” CD, which is utter BS. The fact that “most people couldn’t tell the difference” means nothing about the quality of the reproduction. People can’t tell a lot of things. Nevertheless, those things are still true.
I suggest you read up on digital sampling. The only losses in a CD are frequencies above the cut off rate. Well above what most people can hear.
That may be my next scale purchase. The digital one I bought ran out of batteries which it claimed it never would do so I bought a bathroom-style analog one and its reading depends on how I am leaning on it.
A discrepancy like that can also be accounted for by when you’re weighing yourself, your body’s water content at the time (like if you ate something salty the night before, your body can retain a lot of water), etc. My body is like a sponge. I can gain 6 pounds of water weight from eating a lot of salty food over the weekend, and then lose it all as the water sheds over the week. I don’t sweat 2 pounds here, two pounds there (or at least I didn’t when I was dieting.) Similarly, if I do a real strenuous workout, I can lose over five pounds at a go. This is confirmed on multiple trials using both analog and electronic scales. So it could just have been that you weighed yourself at a time your body was retaining water.
I suggest you read this short, simple piece on high resolution audio, and how it compares to CDs, which according to your description above, must be perfect, since no one can hear the frequencies that are lost:
Incidentally, you misquoted me in that first line (and broke board rules as well, by adding the bracketed bit to my quote). Worse still, the bracketed bit is wrong. It’s not what I was saying. I was responding to your statement (bolding mine) that “And no one, especially no experts, ever said, in the history of the world, that CDs were perfect. But it does seem there are many that claim vinyl is.” Neither I nor anyone I know has ever claimed that vinyl is perfect, or even that it is objectively superior to CDs.
On many newer cars, the display is configurable. There’s quite possibly an option in some settings menu where you can choose whether you want a numerical display, an analog style gauge, both (with the analog gauge larger than the numeric readout), both (but vice versa), show the map from the navigation system instead of the tach (because who really cares about the engine RPM on the freeway), change the color of the speedometer, etc, etc, etc… So what you see in rental cars might simply be the default setting, or just the way the last person who drove it left it.
That might very well be, thanks. But that’s quite different from a car that has ONLY a numerical display for speed. I’d have no problem with configurable options. The last rental car I had was a Volkswagen Jetta, which seemed to be big on high-tech and had more buttons and settings than you could shake a stick at! 
I didn’t play with most of them.
Okay, that’s it. I’m dragging my fountain pen out of storage, fixing up my old AR turntable, and buying a Miata.
It’s never too late. I hit the used record store and actually found some “surprisingly good” albums in the dollar bins.
And I decided I wanted good penmanship, so made up a “font” I liked and practiced… within two weeks I had beautiful (but slower) handwriting. Enough that I’m hand-lettering some of my books.
I’m old enough that I remember having most of my music on vinyl and the downside of the format is that it’s very heavy. A couple of feet of records on a shelf could easily cause it to bow over time. CDs were a lot lighter and smaller and of course MP3s take up no space.
At one point, I had 5 1/4" floppy disks with programs and files, then 3 1/2" discs, then CDs and now everything is on the computer, with multiple terabyte backups on external hard drives.
Come to think of it, the Miata may well be one of the most “analog” or low-tech cars on the market. It’s got an analog speedometer and tachometer, just a rather basic LCD display for temperature, fuel, range, and a few other pieces of info. It’s available with a manual transmission, and it has a mechanical parking brake operated by a lever. It has a manual top (unless you get the RF model). The heat and AC are operated with actual knobs. About the only modern tech it does have is a push button start, and an infotainment screen in place of a radio/CD player. Oh, and Bluetooth which I hardly ever use.
Weird. My Mazda 3 and my wife’s Kia Forte5 (the 5 is a hatchback) both have speedometers labeled all the way to 160.
I think all of that is deliberate, to appeal to people nostalgic for the old British sports cars. Didn’t they even tune the engine noise to sound like the old cars?
Possibly. I am pretty sure they added a resonator to somewhat amplify the engine sound. And they put chrome rings around the gauges to evoke the look of the ones in the British roadsters.
And honestly that does have a lot to do with why a bought. Ever since college I’ve loved old Triumphs. I figure the Miata is the modern, reliable equivalent.
Most people don’t really care much for music, in general, often staying with songs of their youth and not much more. Streaming works well for them.
Some people love it and actively keep interest in different music and bands over the years and are a constant search for new music. Streaming does not work well for them. It’s the usual tech evangelism to state that streaming allows for better music discovery. It does not for me. The assumption is that I am like everybody else and thus will listen to the same music, and I’ve yet to find any streaming service which has got close to defining my music taste and providing me with a better discovery mechanism.
Plus few of the 200 odd cds I bought last year (ok, year before) would ever be on such a streaming services.
I’ve spent a lot of time on Jalopnik.com (guess what? It costs nothing to read about cool cars!), and one thing I’ve learned is that there are cars that are built to be purposely low tech.
For instance, the Miata was not built to be fast, but to give the driver a feel for the road without any technology (or comfort!) getting in the way.
Back in the 80s, I came up with a theory that I called High Tech/High Touch. It just kind of came out, while I was in front of a bunch of college students that were becoming enamored of those (then-new) computer graphics, and I said watch out. The more we’re surrounded by visuals created digitally, the more we’ll want to “see the hand of the artist at work”.
This also applies to stereo equipment, writing, cars, and music (my millennial kids would rather hear a guitarist’s fingers squeak on the strings than listen to anything auto-tuned… somebody raised 'em right).
Now you’re talking about something else. Who cares about Hi-res audio? Deflectors on full!
The rest of us are talking CD v vinyl, and mp3. And no matter how much you attempt to distract from the point, lossy compression formats are not as good as CD.