Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[rdenney]

I'm with you on books. I still have little sticky-tape flags on mine.

I have a Pentax 6x7, annoyingly, it's hard to both get and process 220 these days. I would love to have a 6x7 sized sensor with resolution like in my Z7, let me tell you.


I haven't had a lot of trouble with posterization with modern digital cameras (forget using them from a scanner, indeed!), but that's due to the camera doing more of the 'right thing' in the first place, I suspect.

I don't have any B&W stuff any more, which I regret, because of out of the 10 or so photos i have that I really love, 8 are B&W from Pan F+ (50 IS).
One is Velvia, and the last is a 6 frame composite of Yellowstone Canyon (from the viewpoint north of the Tower Falls area) that had the best weather imaginable (clouds making light dot the canyon, etc). Only 2 of 10 are not B&W. Apparently I still think in B&W.

J_J, you remind me of Ctein (that is a compliment).

Yup, Pentax 67 user here. It’s the smallest film camera I use any more. Any smaller isn’t worth the trouble. I can fulfill my objectives (stated elsewhere) with 6x7 and larger, and sometimes I use the 67 just as an expression of the ability to do so. Lovely machine. I still have about 50 rolls of 220 Velvia in the freezer, but sent it out for processing.

When I shot black and white in 35mm, it was Panatomic X souped in Rodinal. Ilford Pan F is lovely stuff—perfect for roll film. I standardized on FP4 for sheet film cameras, using the Zone System. I have to admit, though, that my color work is better. I’m incapable of judging my own work, however.

But with digital, I’m often holding the exposure down to keep from blowing out highlights I want to preserve, and then pulling up details out of the shadows. Blowing out highlights is like 0 dB—digital clipping. If you like, we can start a thread on it in the photo area and I’ll show some examples.

Rick “who still thinks in Zones” Denney

 

[rdenney]

And the squashed hockey puck BS continues.
For all the yapping about how much fun the old tech is, where's your Edison cylinder players?

Funny.

Say, what motorcycles do you ride?

Rick “just curious” Denney

 

[Sal1950]

Funny.

Say, what motorcycles do you ride?

Rick “just curious” Denney

Not any kick start models, left them behind around 1978

 

[audio2design]

But with digital, I’m often holding the exposure down to keep from blowing out highlights I want to preserve, and then pulling up details out of the shadows. Blowing out highlights is like 0 dB—digital clipping. If you like, we can start a thread on it in the photo area and I’ll show some examples.

Rick “who still thinks in Zones” Denney

I wonder how much longer we will have to wait for DSLR/Mirrorless to have in-camera processing on the level of my phone.

 

[rdenney]

I wonder how much longer we will have to wait for DSLR/Mirrorless to have in-camera processing on the level of my phone.

What my iPhone does in this regard is akin to a freebie add-in to a DAW that applies brick wall compression. Yes, it’s all loud, but it doesn’t sound real.

I’ve seen very little HDR photography intended as being artistic that doesn’t make me throw up a little in my mouth. Pulling up shadow detail and HDR ain’t the same thing.

But if I’m making a photo in an engine compartment to remember where the bolts go, the phone’s processing is perfect.

It’s a matter of fulfilling requirements. I make thousands of photos on my iPhone and actually edit some of them on the phone using Photoshop. Quality is often decent, and if that’s the camera in hand, one makes it work. But so much more is possible.

Rick “finding iPhone pics look best on iPhones” Denney

 

[JP]

The truest sign of insanity is repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different outcome.

Perhaps you could use one of these?

 

[audio2design]

I’ve seen very little HDR photography intended as being artistic that doesn’t make me throw up a little in my mouth. Pulling up shadow detail and HDR ain’t the same thing.

HDR as an artistic detail is not the same thing as using HDR techniques to improve shadow detail without increasing noise, but the underlying technology is the same. On my phone at least, I probably use HDR for 30-40% of my shots (usually outdoors on hikes). It looks just like a normal picture, but with more dynamic range, better shadow detail (especially in chroma), and some side benefits like less purple fringing.

 

[JJB70]

I think photography has a lot in common with audio in that excellent performance has been commoditised and smartphones are all most people need (well, apart from headphones or active speakers). Just as I think that smartphones have perfectly good audio output for listening purposes so I also think that the camera capabilities of smartphones are perfectly good for most people most of the time.
However, having gone back to using a camera after a break of several years I do enjoy the physical interaction with a camera. It may do nothing for image quality but it does a lot for the pleasure I get from photography. Where a camera does win out in objective terms is having a view finder which is invaluable in bright conditions. But, I will admit I still find something wonderful in old film cameras even though I would hate to have to go back to film (other than as a Sunday afternoon indulgence).
For audio I have arrived at a point where I honestly think gear doesn't matter.i still like classic Japanese hifi gear, but I love it for the depth of engineering, quality, tactile feel.

 

[rdenney]

HDR as an artistic detail is not the same thing as using HDR techniques to improve shadow detail without increasing noise, but the underlying technology is the same. On my phone at least, I probably use HDR for 30-40% of my shots (usually outdoors on hikes). It looks just like a normal picture, but with more dynamic range, better shadow detail (especially in chroma), and some side benefits like less purple fringing.

But it's still a software trick to get around inadequately small sensors. Perfect for the phone. But for stuff where I might want to make big prints with an abundance of tonality that I have specifically manipulated to achieve my objectives, I'd rather have explicit control over that process, and the best data possible. Which is why I shoot in RAW on much bigger sensors.

The only purple fringing I see is with old long telephoto lenses used at wide apertures. But the smaller the sensor, the greater the enlargement for viewing, and the better the lenses have to be. And chroma noise is nothing in my big Pentax compared to the iphone. I rarely have to filter it even when it's visible, but when I do, I want to control just how much noise reduction is applied. Smartphones do all that for us without the option, which is fine for quick grab shots.

I'd take my iphone over lots of small digicams of the past without hesitation. But for serious work, as I said I want control over the process--owning it is my responsibility whether I delegate it to software or not.

Audio equivalent: The iphone also makes good sound recordings for quick dictations and the like. It's quite good for feedback rejection, echo removal, and lots of other features. But for serious recording, particularly of music, I don't see anyone using it without a serious external microphone, and probably a DAW app of some sort (I'm guessing there--I've never used an iphone for serious live recording). And I suspect most of those features that are great for Zoom meetings and Facetime are not so good for music recording. The camera in this analog is the microphone, and Photoshop is the mix/mastering software.

Rick "who has lots of iphone photos that look okay enlarged to...4x6" prints " Denney

 

[audio2design]

But it's still a software trick to get around inadequately small sensors. Perfect for the phone. But for stuff where I might want to make big prints with an abundance of tonality that I have specifically manipulated to achieve my objectives, I'd rather have explicit control over that process, and the best data possible. Which is why I shoot in RAW on much bigger sensors.

The only purple fringing I see is with old long telephoto lenses used at wide apertures. But the smaller the sensor, the greater the enlargement for viewing, and the better the lenses have to be. And chroma noise is nothing in my big Pentax compared to the iphone. I rarely have to filter it even when it's visible, but when I do, I want to control just how much noise reduction is applied. Smartphones do all that for us without the option, which is fine for quick grab shots.

I'd take my iphone over lots of small digicams of the past without hesitation. But for serious work, as I said I want control over the process--owning it is my responsibility whether I delegate it to software or not.

Audio equivalent: The iphone also makes good sound recordings for quick dictations and the like. It's quite good for feedback rejection, echo removal, and lots of other features. But for serious recording, particularly of music, I don't see anyone using it without a serious external microphone, and probably a DAW app of some sort (I'm guessing there--I've never used an iphone for serious live recording). And I suspect most of those features that are great for Zoom meetings and Facetime are not so good for music recording. The camera in this analog is the microphone, and Photoshop is the mix/mastering software.

Rick "who has lots of iphone photos that look okay enlarged to...4x6" prints " Denney

HDR for increased natural dynamic range is no more a software trick than oversampling is in audio or any signal capture to achieve higher SNR or greater bit depth.

Most modern cameras remove purple fringing as part of their firmware in demosaicing. It is unavoidable w.r.t. what the sensor sees with a single sensor / RGB filter, but you can remove it in software before the user is ever aware.

It is surprising, but today, medium format digital cameras do not have any greater dynamic range per pixel than full-frame sensors, even though the pixel size of medium format is larger. The tech employed in them still seems to be a bit behind even though they have 50% large pixel area.

 

[Robin L]

Speaking of TT's anyone here recognize this table?
A friend of mine has a line on one but says there's no identifiable markings on it anywhere?
Maybe it's hot. LOL
It' at least 20 years old, I thought it might be a SOTA but ???
View attachment 176528

Well-tempered Turntable? The arm looks like the arm for the WTT.

[edit after reading the rest of the thread]

I remember db audio in Berkeley demoed that turntable. That fishing line for the tonearm bearing was the highlight. Not quite uni-pivot, but almost, dampened by the oil in the base of the tonearm. I remember it sounding "pricy" but not perfect. Funny, how LP replay always sounds a little off, no matter how much tech is thrown at it.

 

[killdozzer]

Wow, 70 pages... Are we any smarter? No, really, I'm asking. Was one solid argument made OTHER than "I like"?

Again, I'll say I like records, it seems this is necessary to stop "trench" accusations.

I think the problem is that whenever a topic like this arises, some people try to use it (abuse it?) to smuggle some misinformation under the radar. In most cases at least to smuggle this "I like it better so it IS better in a way" thus smuggling "better to me" under "better" These may seem similar but they are light years apart as these thread of our clearly show.

One might ask why come into a "why do records sound so much better than digital" to keep on looking for any straw-man argument. If it's not this, then that, if not that the other... The third, the fourth, the fifth argument... Keep coming with new and new... After awhile it does look like a desperate effort to find at least one thing to finally establish it as a fact. We've been over dozens of arguments so far and there is a pattern. You can see it in the Hegel thread. If it's not one thing then it's another. The build, the looks, the sound signature, the display... Same as with records- It started with the idea of superior sound. Then it was; for some genres, for the natural feel, for cover art, for romantics, for fiddling about the cartridges, for certain eras in music, for certain instruments, for listening to the whole album (my pet peeve as you can only listen to a whole album on a CD and only half on a record)... It's like; anything, give us anything!! Give us at least one single argument as records just have to be better since I like them. Now it's deterioration.

I really don't understand this insurmountable obstacle for some people to simply utter: I prefer something inferior. Do you honestly believe that "I like it" = "better". It would almost seem egotistical if nothing else. Does the fact that I like something make it really better? What about trash movies? Do they cease to be trash because they have an audience? What about the aesthetics of ugliness?

I like a lot of ****** music, food, movies, cars... I like Yummy Fur, Kebab, John Waters and old timers. I don't think this makes them superior.

You can etch the pattern found on a CD onto anything. No one says it has to be on a re writable CD (I had a lot of those stop working). And I don't even think that the sound is a valid argument. CD can be made to sound exactly like a record. Another thing, how come no one misses all those record sound features when going in clubs? No romantic clicks and pops, no wow, no flutter, no IGD, sometimes even no compression

OTOH cut a record into marble if you want and all the objections remain.

 

[rdenney]

HDR for increased natural dynamic range is no more a software trick than oversampling is in audio or any signal capture to achieve higher SNR or greater bit depth.

Most modern cameras remove purple fringing as part of their firmware in demosaicing. It is unavoidable w.r.t. what the sensor sees with a single sensor / RGB filter, but you can remove it in software before the user is ever aware.

It is surprising, but today, medium format digital cameras do not have any greater dynamic range per pixel than full-frame sensors, even though the pixel size of medium format is larger. The tech employed in them still seems to be a bit behind even though they have 50% large pixel area.

Sure it is. Just recording the wide subject brightness range is the easy part. Representing it in a narrower range of tones requires tone-mapping, and that is most certainly done via software.

Most cameras use multiple exposures to create a file with, say, 16-bit depth per color (or more) from three or more overlapping data sets covering the subject brightness range. Let's say that we take three sensor files with 8-bit depth and make a 16-bit-depth HDR. One image gets mapped from its original bits to 0-8, another gets mapped from 4-12, and the third image gets mapped to 9-16. Where they cross over they get averaged or something like that. We now have a file with greater depth than the display can show, and the display will therefore map the tones again to fit them into what can be displayed, usually by compression. So far, the software and software alone has decided which subject tones get mapped to which file tones (bit values), and from there to which display tones, and for most users, that's the end of it. And that's fine for many uses, I suppose.

If that isn't processing, then what is it?

My Pentax 645z does not have an anti-aliasing filter. When I display images on my editing monitor (109 pixels/inch) at 100%, the image I'm looking at is an excerpt from a frame that would be 75 inches wide. Even at that enlargement, I can barely see the effects of the demosaicing algorithm in Adobe Camera Raw (and I have the newest version with Enhance Details, not that it matters that much). With 50 megapixels and more, lens performance is far more an issue than pixel-level algorithms. But even without any demosaicing--no filter yet applied viewing the RAW file in DxO Photolab, for instance--I don't see purple fringing at 100% on my monitor.

Your statement is precise--the best full-frame sensors have no less dynamic range than the older Sony sensor in the Pentax despite their smaller pixels--but they are also not really any better. I'm looking at DxO scores, sparse though they are, and the 645z is still right at the top with the Hasselblad X1-D (which uses the same sensor). I would really want to see the 100MP sensor in the Fuji tested similarly before drawing any conclusions, plus a good few of the FF sensors they haven't test (including those used by Pentax in the K1. I know I can dig up quality detail out of the depths much more successfully with the Pentax then we my wife's much newer (but much smaller) Nikon D500. So, yes, technology has marched on a bit, but the big pixels in the Pentax still defend the value of larger formats for those unconcerned about weight and bulk. But I also get larger pixels and more real-estate, meaning less enlargement for a given display size, which means less demand on lens performance. That has save me many more thousands of dollars than the camera cost, given the fleet of lenses I can draw from.

Rick "recalling all the tech that went into making cassettes good--that was then translated to open reels, making them better" Denney

 

[rdenney]

Wow, 70 pages... Are we any smarter? No, really, I'm asking. Was one solid argument made OTHER than "I like"?

People see the title, skip the long thread, and respond to the title assuming that the only reason the thread is still going is because they haven't answered the OP yet. Can't fix that tendency.

I think even the vinyl enthusiasts here have agreed (and agree, and agreed, and agreed) that digital methods work better for distribution in every single dimension of measurement than does vinyl. Maybe the occasional stray anthill-kicker wanders in to stir the pot, but we can count on the usual piler-onners to pile on.

But there has also been lots of useful discussion and I think I summarize the salient points thusly:

1. The value of the hobby, and how differently each may approach their enjoyment of it. That includes pursuing the best that an archaic technology can produce just for the joy of the pursuit. This brings them an experiential payoff--a pride of accomplishment against odds not imposed on people who stream onto desktop systems or headphone systems. I've seen lists of headphones people own in the dozens. That's a greater investment than most of us have in vinyl, that can only be justified because trying them out is fun for the sake of it.

2. Flaws notwithstanding, many can listen to vinyl playback and not be distracted from the music. Many others cannot. Some even value the ritual of vinyl playback, while others deride it.

3. Vinyl playback as a broader movement is based on the same sorts of misunderstanding of cause and effect as a lot of other audio foolishness. But in part what drives it is a rebellion against software-based technology that throws change at people so fast they can't keep up. They see these archaic electro-mechanical analog technologies as high-touch rather than high-tech, as John Naisbitt described it 40 years ago.

4. Electro-mechanical playback technologies, for all their flaws, are not in any way economical. This is not a hobby for the impecunious, though the costs of getting very good performance (relative to what is possible) are often overstated.

5. Many own libraries they wish to preserve the use of, either because it represents cash already spent that doesn't need to be spent again, or because they'd rather use stuff than throw it away, or because they think (rightly or wrongly) it's easier to sustain in the long run, or because the recordings on the vinyl were mastered in a more pleasing way than later remasterings for whatever reason.

As for buying advice, I don't think many of the active participants in this thread would recommend anyone undertake a new vinyl capability if they don't already own a vinyl library, or if they aren't interested in it for its own sake. I know I wouldn't.

Rick "in the vain hope we won't have to relitigate these points" Denney

 

[audio2design]

Seeing on a display is not quite like seeing in real life either though, so say like 2 channel audio, it is already artificial. While we can see a wide dynamic range, we can't see it in a single view. We move our eyes/focus to shadow areas in order to see those details. To that end, logarithmic tonal mapping that is consistent (as opposed to artistic) can provide a very natural image as we can our eyes around it. We have a something consistent logarithmic response to light levels. Where difficulty comes in is with brighter and darker images in the same area. One could argue a manual process is best, but I expect AI would do a better job.

 

[killdozzer]

People see the title, skip the long thread, and respond to the title assuming that the only reason the thread is still going is because they haven't answered the OP yet. Can't fix that tendency.

I doubt it's that. I don't see people coming here with new answers for the OP about sound at all, but with new takes on why records are superior. OP wasn't asking a question. His title really reads as "here's why" as his first sentences show. Otherwise why not start a new thread that would take away some of the obvious hits? Something like "we're not beating the dead horse about superiority, but we want to say what we like and appreciate with records" (jokingly).

And there are such threads here and there are some true meisters on the subject of turntables and records here. I remember when I asked about a cart... The amount of advice and true love for records I got was really stronger than in any fan-boy forums. Those members said many fascinating things about the TT tech and openly exhibited the affection. There was, expectedly, no problem at all. Only false claims are the problem. Zero tolerance for false claims. It's only as good as it is (which is nothing to sneeze at)

I can't help but see an evolution of an argument, adjusting standpoints, coming up with new arguments and similar strategies as a clear sign that one already knows what he wants to believe in and now it's just a matter of a posterior justification. As Conan-Doyle said; looking for arguments that fit a theory already posed.

Also what I don't like about it is that it always finds its way to snake-oil in the end. I don't change my views on records for that, but I don't want to fuel it either.

I had to look up the word relitigate. Are you using it as "I hope I won't have to prove again the points proven"? If so, why not?

Why would you have it easy or easier than others? People in this hobby said like a million times that expensive cables are not necessary. And yes the same goes for skin effect. And yes, strand-to-strand too. Yes, the oxide-crystals too. Before you ask, the battery does zilch. Even the shielding. Aaand cryo. The lifters. And what happens, you ask? One time Gene says he owns expensive cables and that's all they hear. Now you have people literally justifying expensive cables with Audioholics, although Audioholics doesn't support it.

Same for you. You'll have to stand your grounds.

So, again: why a hundred different arguments here and not one thread that will feature personal affections to records? You know what I'll tell you, I think you maybe said it right when it comes to why you participate, but my comment also covers more than a few in this thread.

 

[rdenney]

Seeing on a display is not quite like seeing in real life either though, so say like 2 channel audio, it is already artificial. While we can see a wide dynamic range, we can't see it in a single view. We move our eyes/focus to shadow areas in order to see those details. To that end, logarithmic tonal mapping that is consistent (as opposed to artistic) can provide a very natural image as we can our eyes around it. We have a something consistent logarithmic response to light levels. Where difficulty comes in is with brighter and darker images in the same area. One could argue a manual process is best, but I expect AI would do a better job.

Well, of course. But I'm not making a photo to recreate real life. I'm making a photo to express my response to real life. It will be presented in two dimensions, and if a print (which I my preferred mechanism), will be further limited in dynamic range.

But when I adjust the tonality of an image, I want to draw attention to what I want to draw attention to. Tell me I have to use an HDR tone-mapping algorithm without the option is like telling Rick Wakeman that some algorithm will be adjusting the volume of his keyboard while he plays, or telling any musician that when it's on the record, their pianissimos will be just nearly as loud as their fortissimos. I think on ASR we rise in unison to fight that sort of loudness-war compression. We also make a clear distinction between art and reproduction. For me, the tonal mappings in a final print are part of the artistic expression. If I give that print to a publisher to put in a book, then it's their job to reflect what I've done in the print--that's reproduction. But making the print is part of the art. How much of the below was live, and how much was what I did to it? The changes I made were certainly NOT logarithmic, or even uniform across the image.

(Sadie Cove, Alaska, 2018, Copyright Rick Denney)

I never liked film-era ways of compressing dynamic range, either, including (particularly) the use of graduated filters. They can be done tastefully, so I don't reject the concept. But some were actually colored grads to change the color of the sky with respect to the ground. To my eyes, they made the image look fake. I think I can achieve the same goal (of dredging up detail out of deep shadow) using other methods, one of which is being a bit more careful/choosy about the lighting. (That doesn't always work out, but the lack of it is nearly impossible to overcome with any amount of processing.) My one exception is the occasional use of polarizing filters to darken a sky. Of course, with black and white, we are already in the abstract, so we still retain realism without in any way being bound by reality. B&W is much more flexible in that regard.

By the way, one of the most popular color films of all time was Fuji Velvia, which was slide film that sported, dripping wet, maybe 4 stops of range. With Provia or Ektachrome, I could get 6. With Ektar print film, maybe 9. With black and white, carefully used, 10 or 11. And these are not distributed linearly across the range of film densities--the stops in the middle represent greater density jumps than those on the ends. Much bigger challenge to hit the mark perfectly.

Rick "so much to compare in philosophy between music and photography" Denney

 

[killdozzer]

@rdenney One other thing I wanted to say, if you allow.

I heard this notion of "back to vinyl" being somehow anti conformist or anti establishment. Some used it for MC as well. I must say, if I was to gentle about "egotistical" in my 1392 post, now it's time to really put it to rest. This I must say is pure patting onself on his own sholder. Since subversion and rebellion were a subject of mine for quite some time, this touched me more than it probably should. I can give a short version; there's absolutely nothing in a least bit or in any way subversive or even slightly taunting to the dominant market order about vinyl. If anything, vinyl falls along the line of today's market more than closely mp3.

Mind you, not that I think vinyl should at all be subversive (perhaps you meant the hidden messages just kidding), but since you made that point. It's quite the opposite.

Even the entire back to vinyl "movement" (I hate even calling it that) begun with an unsatisfactory verdict for The Pirate Bay. Back then when Willie Nelson started campaigning that "music looses soul" unless on hi-res or vinyl, it was about control of the material. It was about how to make kids go for physical medium when they had mp3 and it was to make sure everyone payed. So, regardless of what someone said, it WAS the old farts saving records, but it was through convincing kids. It's just that, today we know not many urban subcultures are as counter-revolutionary and backward as hipster culture is.

Again, this is not me saying you should see records any differently or like Pirate Bay, but what I am saying is vinyl is middle of the road.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well, of course. But I'm not making a photo to recreate real life. I'm making a photo to express my response to real life. It will be presented in two dimensions, and if a print (which I my preferred mechanism), will be further limited in dynamic range.

But when I adjust the tonality of an image, I want to draw attention to what I want to draw attention to. Tell me I have to use an HDR tone-mapping algorithm without the option is like telling Rick Wakeman that some algorithm will be adjusting the volume of his keyboard while he plays, or telling any musician that when it's on the record, their pianissimos will be just nearly as loud as their fortissimos. I think on ASR we rise in unison to fight that sort of loudness-war compression. We also make a clear distinction between art and reproduction. For me, the tonal mappings in a final print are part of the artistic expression. If I give that print to a publisher to put in a book, then it's their job to reflect what I've done in the print--that's reproduction. But making the print is part of the art. How much of the below was live, and how much was what I did to it? The changes I made were certainly NOT logarithmic, or even uniform across the image.

(Sadie Cove, Alaska, 2018, Copyright Rick Denney)

I never liked film-era ways of compressing dynamic range, either, including (particularly) the use of graduated filters. They can be done tastefully, so I don't reject the concept. But some were actually colored grads to change the color of the sky with respect to the ground. To my eyes, they made the image look fake. I think I can achieve the same goal (of dredging up detail out of deep shadow) using other methods, one of which is being a bit more careful/choosy about the lighting. (That doesn't always work out, but the lack of it is nearly impossible to overcome with any amount of processing.) My one exception is the occasional use of polarizing filters to darken a sky. Of course, with black and white, we are already in the abstract, so we still retain realism without in any way being bound by reality. B&W is much more flexible in that regard.

By the way, one of the most popular color films of all time was Fuji Velvia, which was slide film that sported, dripping wet, maybe 4 stops of range. With Provia or Ektachrome, I could get 6. With Ektar print film, maybe 9. With black and white, carefully used, 10 or 11. And these are not distributed linearly across the range of film densities--the stops in the middle represent greater density jumps than those on the ends. Much bigger challenge to hit the mark perfectly.

Rick "so much to compare in philosophy between music and photography" Denney

I am not terribly experienced as a photographer. I didn't know about the Velvia having less range until someone told me about it. They preferred Ektachrome. However, I much preferred Fuji Velvia. The colors seemed much more dead on to me. Sometimes Kodak colors could turn out wonky on odd colors it seemed.

 

[rdenney]

@killdozzer I wasn't really thinking in terms of being anti-conformist--and that depends on which camp (tribe?) you want to conform to in any case.

I was thinking in the larger philosophical sense of some people feeling overwhelmed by the pace of technological advancement and ubiquity. They seek out ways to avoid technology. We all know people at all points of that spectrum. Hardly anyone escapes technology, of course, but some seek out ways to take refuge from it. That isn't rebellion, really, just weariness.

Even young groups these days have adopted a highly simplified (the overused term is minimalist) aesthetic, which I think is in some ways a high-touch reaction to so many cords and batteries. I think for many it's not hating technology, it's just not want to see it everywhere. Maybe I'm wrong.

Sometimes I feel like my office looks like a Blade Runner set.

Rick "not a big moral question, but rather just a desire to simplify" Denney