Analog electronics in the 2000's. Why we still use them, will they disappear?

[Giglawyer]

Neil Young once said "Sound is like water. Analog is a warm bucketful slowly poured over your head and digital is the same water, same bucket only this time it's ice cubes dumped quickly. I know which is more pleasing to me."

I tend to agree. 

[rring]

go to this site and you will see why analog will never die
http://lpcoverlover.com/

remember "for every ounce of progress there is a pound of nostalgia"

I love my records!

[Mark Hammer]

Part of the problem is most people don't really understand the recording process or the technology involved with it. So they take one sliver in a big pie and latch on to it: "oh, it's analog", "oh, it's digital", "it's germanium", "it's silicon", "it's solid state", "it's tube", and suddenly, in their minds that one little piece among a vast number of pieces accounts for the whole reason they either like or hate a particular sound. While a lot of pedal and amp circuits are fairly primitive, there are still a lot of "moving parts" involved in what affects the final sound you hear. And the recording/mixing/mastering process is much *much* more complex than that.

So you mix this with a little good old-fashioned sentimentality and nostalgia, shake, stir, and myopia results. Pretty soon there are all kinds of "internet truisms" flying around that people believe without questioning. Usually, what is really going is much more complex.

You broach on something we tend to overlook: the fact that digital audio technology has emerged within the same time period/era that internet memes have as well.  There was nowhere near the current level of rumour, innuendo, and misinformation 30 and 40 years ago, when all you had available were the monthly magazines, the quarterly or bi-monthly journals, and the annual conferences.  What we "know" (or at least believe we know) about both analog and digital audio technology at this point in time is constructed by this new milieu, inseparable from it, and filtered by those electronic means we use to gather information.

When I was in a band in the 70's, I had heard from some players that Fender Bassman's were actually really good guitar amps.  There was no information available to either indicate why or to identify which particular models were desirable (and why they were).  Pics of tweeds, blonde piggybacks, blackface and silverface were largely unavailable, unless you knew someone who collected catalogs or had operated a service bench for a couple decades.  So, I borrowed a silverface head from a guy for a gig, and ran it through a 15" Radio Shack speaker I had bought and put in a homebrew cab.  It sounded decent, but nothing to change my world-view, and I put the info out of my mind for another 15-18 years.

Contrast that scenario with what the present-day musician is able to find out, and the multitude of opinions they will run into about it.  I might point out that all many of us had access to at that time, for information about gear, was Guitar Player, Downbeat, the Jack Darr book, and the very occasional article in Popular Electronics.

[DougH]

Part of the problem is most people don't really understand the recording process or the technology involved with it. So they take one sliver in a big pie and latch on to it: "oh, it's analog", "oh, it's digital", "it's germanium", "it's silicon", "it's solid state", "it's tube", and suddenly, in their minds that one little piece among a vast number of pieces accounts for the whole reason they either like or hate a particular sound. While a lot of pedal and amp circuits are fairly primitive, there are still a lot of "moving parts" involved in what affects the final sound you hear. And the recording/mixing/mastering process is much *much* more complex than that.

So you mix this with a little good old-fashioned sentimentality and nostalgia, shake, stir, and myopia results. Pretty soon there are all kinds of "internet truisms" flying around that people believe without questioning. Usually, what is really going is much more complex.

You broach on something we tend to overlook: the fact that digital audio technology has emerged within the same time period/era that internet memes have as well.  There was nowhere near the current level of rumour, innuendo, and misinformation 30 and 40 years ago, when all you had available were the monthly magazines, the quarterly or bi-monthly journals, and the annual conferences.  What we "know" (or at least believe we know) about both analog and digital audio technology at this point in time is constructed by this new milieu, inseparable from it, and filtered by those electronic means we use to gather information.

When I was in a band in the 70's, I had heard from some players that Fender Bassman's were actually really good guitar amps.  There was no information available to either indicate why or to identify which particular models were desirable (and why they were).  Pics of tweeds, blonde piggybacks, blackface and silverface were largely unavailable, unless you knew someone who collected catalogs or had operated a service bench for a couple decades.  So, I borrowed a silverface head from a guy for a gig, and ran it through a 15" Radio Shack speaker I had bought and put in a homebrew cab.  It sounded decent, but nothing to change my world-view, and I put the info out of my mind for another 15-18 years.

Contrast that scenario with what the present-day musician is able to find out, and the multitude of opinions they will run into about it.  I might point out that all many of us had access to at that time, for information about gear, was Guitar Player, Downbeat, the Jack Darr book, and the very occasional article in Popular Electronics.

That's a good point- the speed and efficiency of (mis)information these days. And as R.G. has mentioned before- "The internet is wide but not very deep." So although ideas spread very quickly and are easy to locate, they are usually not very well thought-out IME.

[Mark Hammer]

Even when they ARE well thought out, the number of stages of potential transformation between the original source, and when it reaches any given web-user, allow considerable opportunity for misconstruing the information.

Moreover, the net affords considerable opportunity for false-consensus effects ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect ), supported by "likes" and chatroom/forum responses from a couple people.  So there is greater risk of people being convinced of the truth of what they think they know...like how elastic bands on Fuzz Faces improve the sound.

[karbomusic]

Even when they ARE well thought out, the number of stages of potential transformation between the original source, and when it reaches any given web-user, allow considerable opportunity for misconstruing the information.

Moreover, the net affords considerable opportunity for false-consensus effects ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect ), supported by "likes" and chatroom/forum responses from a couple people.  So there is greater risk of people being convinced of the truth of what they think they know...like how elastic bands on Fuzz Faces improve the sound.

True and it still comes down (IMHO) to "smart guy gets the rewards" at the end of the day. In other words the right person knows how to dig all the value out of a sea of information where 80% of the information is misinformation. I think that has always been the case even when information was less available and before the internet.

Thusly, he who has the skill/intelligence/diligence/demeanor whathaveyou to separate the wheat from the chaff is going to get way more value from that information regardless of how much there is or the quality of it. Everyone else is simply going to repeat what they see and hear because they don't want to think for themselves and those have always existed. On the internet it just gets infinitely multiplied. However, for reasons stated above, I'm happy to wade through that info because 30 years ago, I'd go to the library and hope to find a book that might be close to what I wanted to learn and so on.

[clipman3]

Postmodern hipsters don't have a say in the evolution of technology, sorry. Leave it to the rich, healthy and educated to bitch about how distraught they are with contemporary conveniences.

I don't know if you've noticed or not, but the rich, healthy, and educated do actually pretty much control most aspects of the world.
I also don't think you're getting my point.
Post-digital isn't a "hipster" thing. It's a large part of society. Look at the recent backlash on iCloud. It's a reality of modern society.
And if you want proof, look at the plethora of post-digital advertising. Everything is "vintage" in our "modern" society. Clothes, music, hell even websites are feeling the effects. Oh, and how many of your friends use Instagram?

How do you mean "replace it"? It's already been replaced by tape, which in turn was replaced by the CD and so on. Or are you referring to a modern tech that behaves precisely like vinyl, including all its shortcomings and particularities when it comes to sound reproduction? Well we already have things like these, but this particular issue is not exactly a mainstream priority.

Again, missing the point.
Technological advances =/= mass appeal. You can look at any digital reproduction of an analog delay for proof. And then look at the fact that BBD delays are still both in production and being developed. And allow me to reiterate the importance of Non linear technology in this.
Some people just enjoy whatever feeling analog tech brings them. In vinyl, Haptic Feedback plays a big role.
In the end, it is a matter of opinion. Some enjoy modern hifi, some enjoy the nostalgic tendencies of yesteryear. I enjoy both (I don't have a single "analog" pedal), but the purpose of my post wasn't to argue that one was better than the other, it was to explore ideas as to why many people enjoy analog tech.