I attributed roughly 90% of all 'slashvertisement' accusations as such. Fanatics who can't understand that sometime, yeah, its a sales pitch AND information...and even the more delicate nature of balancing financial interest versus blatant soul-less advertisting versus keeping the site alive. (they gotta pay for my favorite blog/news site somehow)
I never really saw it like this before.
I just did, and it breaks my heart a little.
The most blatant astroturfing I have ever seen on slashdot.
Could that article summary have been worded any more loaded? Sure, a vast majority of us realize what it is and wouldn't waste our time...but out of the tens and tens of thousands that are on here regularly (hundreds of thousands occasionally)....perhaps much more than that even..... but...if only 10% of all people click on that link and sign up, well....that's stil a metric shit-ton of people....and with language like that I'm surely being conservative.
Sorry for the rant, mod me off into oblivion.... I just.... had to tell somebody...
~Dan
I have trouble imagining this so-called laptop being anything other than a gimmick to assuage a sensitive ego that just wants to claim "biggest, baddest", without any particular attention paid to issues of practicality or usability.
Keeping in mind that I agree with you so far as the laptop is concerned...
A couple years back I picked up a highly impracticle car. It was a Toyota MR-2... a 2 seated mid engined double-trunked (both worthless) pocket rocket.
Man how I loved that car, it was so fast....turbocharged.....so agile....not terribly fuel efficient, and not at all practical. Fun fun fun.
Sometimes it really is about being specifically impracticle...the benefits you get from such a machine are equally impracticle. But, man, the price premium and practicality bombs you suffer can be quite worth it.
While Microsoft isn't quite as untouchable as they used to be, especially with the given examples, I still consider them a monopoly.
Monopoly on what? Home desktops? Certainly. Company desktops? Yes again, but losing their grip slowly. Servers? Not so much, and losing their grip quickly. Video game consoles? Not at all. Supercomputing? Nowhere close.
As a whole they may seem to paint Microsoft as becoming more diverse and, inevitably not in monopoly-position in all its new markets.
But, was it ever Microsoft having monopoly status in the first place that was the problem? No.
Has Microsoft ever successfully Monopolized any market besides its desktop market? No.
.... this monopoly status that is used to label microsoft at every turn has been pointless.
Microsoft being a monopoly isn't even the bad thing.
So what's the evil? It's Microsoft leveraging it's monopoly status, repeatedly. Almost exclusively in the desktop realm. It was tried on the server-side with major initial success, but, that momentum started waning immediately.
Sorry, but so far as I am concerned...Microsoft is still a monopoly. A monopoly that has to try new things (staying competetive, attempting to innovate, etc) to maintain their monopoly status. That may be the signs of a monopoly slipping out of their grip, but it is still a monopoly.
...not to mention the fact that I could care less about a monopoly on the back-end, and I dare them to monopolize the video game console market...that's laughable at best..
...But the ~90% (number pulled out of ass) of all desktop computers (especially home desktops) running Windows (as if there was any other way to run a computer, ask Joe Sixpack) certainly, to me, constitutes a monopoly.
...it's just the leveraging of that monopoly that burns me up.
3.) The name is stupid and personifies what I hate about this machine and its community. Microsoft's marketing drones, in trying to decide how they'd market to drooling middle school gamers, thought "Well, gee, they'll see the '3' after Playstation 3 and think it's better than the '2' after X-Box 2. But we can't call it X-Box 3." Then they turn to their young, "dynamic" new guy they hired from an MTV marketing firm. "What would sound hardcore and hip to the kiddies?" "I've got it! It's better than 3, because it's 360!!!" And thus, a stupid market-drone name, X-Box 360, was born.
...I don't care that you're modded flamebiat, I hold generally the same opinion. I don't see someone's opinion as flamebait.... but either way.
This naming convention blows me away... though, I do think it rather clever that Nintendo played off of that with the name "Revolution", that is 360 as well.
Assuming they played off the name, in case...nevermind
I certainly didn't mean that funny...though I certainly appreciate it that way as well.
It's a sad state of affairs in our government here. If these intrusions keep up at this rate the fabled 'joe six pack' will most certainly come to notice. Be it through known monitoring of his IM sessions, the tracking of his grocery purchases with his 'x saver' card, the easy availability of his cell-phone and SMS contents, the broadcast flag on his football games or the RFID in his walmart purchased jockey shorts.
He will eventually notice...but will it ever reach critical mass and make him want to disturb his bubble of complacency? I think it will, eventually... but, sadly, I think his threshold is painfully high.
Poor Joe Six Pack, of course... but even poorer are us 'early adopters' of the reality of what is going on here...speculative or not...
...what was that quote about the government afraid of the people prevents the people afraid of the government?
With innovative ideas and advanced gameplay like this, it is only a matter of time until Linux dominates not just the desktop market, but the gaming market as well.
I, personally, don't see anything all together wrong with that. It's far too easy to get wrapped up in minutea.. It's far too easy for us to become so engulfed by all of the details of any given situation that we can no longer see the forest for the trees.
Business has taught me this. Sometimes (most of the time) it's far more beneficial to drop some of the nit-picky details in favor of the 'big picture', especially if it affects others. Professionally or otherwise.
I'm most certainly a 'geek', by all measures. I can't help but become totally immersed in whatever I find interesting...in depth and breadth.
However, I've always been noted for my ability to work best under pressure--without the pressure I either get nothing accomplished or I 'wander aimlessly forever'...I'm sure many of you can identify.
However, I'm an 'undercover.' Nobody I meet ever suspects that I have held engineer positions, owned my own business or spent multiple hours a day researching (anything of interest) in painful depth.
To sum it up, I think (without RTFA, admittedly) I think that it's far to dynamic of a subject to boil down to black-n-whites such as this.
But then again, perhaps I'm just not 'one of those'..."those" being the majority of geekdom.
not neccesarily... harmonics located outside of our range of hearing have been shown to effect things we can hear.
...besides, I'd rather have all the frequencies I can get and selectively filter it out later than simply not have them. You never know what the future may hold for audio playback, and I would most certainly want the latest version of a recording if it were remastered to let some of those capabilities show.
I do not believe that analog is absolute infinite...simply 'practically infinite'.
I'm fully aware of how a digital recording is captured, converted, played back, and the same in reverse.
I do not want soft clipping, I was merely arguing it as a 'feature' of the format...one that is arguably quite convenient.
...and I do do better with digital. I run preamps and compression/limiting on my inputs, increasing apperent dynamic range...through attentuate, et al..I try to stay analog on that side as well. It seems to detract from digital's 'cold harsh reality' drawback...though I hate the cheeziness factor of having a tiny tube preamp....;)....they work wonders......I have been at this for 13 years now, on digital the entire time, sometimes supplanted by analog inputs...4-tracks, adats...etc...I defend analog, I'm a practical digital fan. Temper my rants with that in mind.
Analog *is* frequency response...that's my entire point, and even given digital's obvious upperhand in so many other domains...and my nearly-entirely digital production environment...I still would prefer analog.
Digital, with the right equipment, can record far higher frequencies....conventionally....though, analog can match it easily given fatter tape width and faster tape speeds....(lets keep those heads running 'very high impact' a friend used to say in relation to tape-speed adjustment).
The wave is analog...
My preference, would it could down to dynamic range (in digital, that's your bit-depth) or frequency response (in digital, that's roughly half your sampling frequency...remember, a wave runs 360 degrees...-180 to +180).......would be dynamic range, where analog has reigned supreme so far....in going from 16-bit to 24-bit sampling I noticed a massive while 'subtle' difference...it just sounded more natural....add all the bits you want, it'll be decades before we beat 2" tape on dynamic range...and frequency response, once again, is another rant entirely...subject to my experiences and what I've read.
I don't know that I as much 'know what I am doing' so much as 'I have experiences that tell me X'
It's not so much benefit of overdriven analog as much as it is 'the breathing room provided', granted...this is circumstantial...depends on recording conditions (live, overdubbed, live show, maximum steady signal level, etc).....so far as benefit is concerned, I've recorded some of the juiciest guitar sounds on analog, overdriven (at the channel) far beyond what digital could have handled....and it distorted beautifully. Giving snares an extra 'snap' through added analog distortion (the only exception I can think of that has a digital-input-overdrive counterpart)...the natural compression.....and some guys rely on such artifacts of analog recording....decreases the need for an actual compresser on every channel...save that for the final out stage....if ever, depending on your mixing technique.
0db signifies the maximum signal you can record 'accurately'...on digital it turns into a very hard clip, on analog it induces tape-saturation. It sounds and feels very natural...as opposed to it's digital counterpart, which sounds cold, harsh, and unnatural....even evil.
Keep in mind, that's more on the 'creative production' side of things, and if you ever have to rely on tape-saturation to provide you with an accurate (or decent) recording, well, you lost the war a long time ago.
So far as accuracy is concerned...I've long noticed digital's tendency to be as pedantic about an input level as a slashdot troll about spelling...analog has, at this point--lack of tapes aside--still had the upperhand in the 'top end' and 'dynamic range' category...see my post about 'level of accesability' in this thread to see where that rant goes.
Though, all being said, I am wildly entertained by noticing and working with the differences associated with each medium....my studio being a highly hybrid (or inbred, as it were) combination of roughy 85% digital 15% analog...I simply can't afford the 'good stuff' in analog....though, even the 'cheap shit' often shatters 'digital guys' perceptions of what is possible....I liken it to 'audiophile types' perceptions to recordings made on what they would consider 'substandard equipment'....ask them to listen to it first, then ask them what they think it was recorded in....no matter who the producer, engineer, or masterer.....the results of such a test are always very flattering, and hysterical.
Analog recordings are subject to limitations of the recording medium. Frequency response, attenuation, noise, dynamic range, etc. The "pure wave" is just theoretical. Your analog recording is no more "pure" than a very high resolution digital recording. Both can resolve the original signal to a degree where any variations are far, far beyond your range of hearing.
Both have caveats.
If the digital signal can reproduce the analog wave to an accuracy far beyond what the human ear and mind can percieve, then the issue is moot. And it can.
I agree with you... 100%... though, digital circuitry is just as subject to attenuation and noise...it is far more forgiving of the former, and for more 'workable' of the latter.
Digital is still subject to the same limitations of frequency response and dynamic range--in fact, the bit-depth and sampling frequency are direct results and/or measures of exactly that...keep in my your nyquist and filter roll-off...I know, I sound like a broken record...no pun intended.;)
My thing is, just because it is beyond our abilities of perception (or mere notice) does not in fact make it irrelevant. Regardless of whether I can hear it or not, I desire to have my purchased recordings descended from the accurate-as-possible-spec recording. While analog has many many many caveats and exceptions, and digital is 'too perfect for analog guys'...I understand, as I am not an analog guy...and that's not even with me going off on a tangent about how 'harmonic frequencies' far beyond our range of hearing have been found to affect our perception thereof.
I'm fully aware of the inconsistencies with analog recordable medium....and even given that, I still side with it. I know that every time you play it back you are helping degrade the quality of the recording....I know that 'magnetic media' is prone to a multitude of conditions...and will be imperfect from the get go.......but, it's hard to beat--even givin its very human-like inconsistencies and fallbacks.
...I've worked wonders remastering brutalized analog recordings....and worked wonders even I couldn't believe, but, for abused digital...while I've worked wonders, it still sounded like a finely polished piece of crap....caveat emptor
Sure, my 96/24 pro-spec audio cards can record almost as well as my Tascam 4-track--think about that for a second--but, where is the cutoff and how sharp is the curve? (audio nerd joke)
I mean it in all seriousness....The 'as-good-as-it-can-possibly-get' analog technology stomps and huge hole in the 'as-good-as-it-can-possibly-get' digital technology. Period.
The second digital recording can accurately (read: perfectly) model the infinite level of amplitudinal variance granted to us by the analog domain...then I'll digress on this point. Even as a '95% digital' audio producer....and even then, I'm sure higher tape speeds and tape width would be an easy fix to stomp a hole in the digital champion.
It can end up being an infinite race to higher sampling frequencies.... (remember your nyquist in digital, half of the top sampling rate is your actual top end frequency...and lets not forget about filter rolloff....22k tops for good cards, in reality...fuck the spec sheet)
...but you'll never beat that infinitely variable and infinitely dividable quality of analog.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an understanding fellow.
I understand fanatic thought.
I attributed roughly 90% of all 'slashvertisement' accusations as such. Fanatics who can't understand that sometime, yeah, its a sales pitch AND information...and even the more delicate nature of balancing financial interest versus blatant soul-less advertisting versus keeping the site alive. (they gotta pay for my favorite blog/news site somehow)
I never really saw it like this before. I just did, and it breaks my heart a little.
The most blatant astroturfing I have ever seen on slashdot.
Could that article summary have been worded any more loaded? Sure, a vast majority of us realize what it is and wouldn't waste our time...but out of the tens and tens of thousands that are on here regularly (hundreds of thousands occasionally)....perhaps much more than that even..... but...if only 10% of all people click on that link and sign up, well....that's stil a metric shit-ton of people....and with language like that I'm surely being conservative.
Sorry for the rant, mod me off into oblivion.... I just.... had to tell somebody... ~Dan
It might be a bit of a band-aid, but, I'd be satisfied if my clients would face public ridicule for adware...
I have trouble imagining this so-called laptop being anything other than a gimmick to assuage a sensitive ego that just wants to claim "biggest, baddest", without any particular attention paid to issues of practicality or usability.
Keeping in mind that I agree with you so far as the laptop is concerned...
A couple years back I picked up a highly impracticle car. It was a Toyota MR-2... a 2 seated mid engined double-trunked (both worthless) pocket rocket.
Man how I loved that car, it was so fast....turbocharged.....so agile....not terribly fuel efficient, and not at all practical. Fun fun fun.
Sometimes it really is about being specifically impracticle...the benefits you get from such a machine are equally impracticle. But, man, the price premium and practicality bombs you suffer can be quite worth it.
One potential hitch in the program: You have to apply to the service in order to receive your indictment electronically."
Uh, yeah...where do I sign up?
While Microsoft isn't quite as untouchable as they used to be, especially with the given examples, I still consider them a monopoly.
...not to mention the fact that I could care less about a monopoly on the back-end, and I dare them to monopolize the video game console market...that's laughable at best..
...But the ~90% (number pulled out of ass) of all desktop computers (especially home desktops) running Windows (as if there was any other way to run a computer, ask Joe Sixpack) certainly, to me, constitutes a monopoly.
...it's just the leveraging of that monopoly that burns me up.
Monopoly on what? Home desktops? Certainly. Company desktops? Yes again, but losing their grip slowly. Servers? Not so much, and losing their grip quickly. Video game consoles? Not at all. Supercomputing? Nowhere close.
As a whole they may seem to paint Microsoft as becoming more diverse and, inevitably not in monopoly-position in all its new markets.
But, was it ever Microsoft having monopoly status in the first place that was the problem? No.
Has Microsoft ever successfully Monopolized any market besides its desktop market? No.
.... this monopoly status that is used to label microsoft at every turn has been pointless.
Microsoft being a monopoly isn't even the bad thing.
So what's the evil? It's Microsoft leveraging it's monopoly status, repeatedly. Almost exclusively in the desktop realm. It was tried on the server-side with major initial success, but, that momentum started waning immediately.
Sorry, but so far as I am concerned...Microsoft is still a monopoly. A monopoly that has to try new things (staying competetive, attempting to innovate, etc) to maintain their monopoly status. That may be the signs of a monopoly slipping out of their grip, but it is still a monopoly.
~Dan
...Who is this Martin Fink I'm hearing so much about? http://www.hp.com/hpbooks/authors/fink.html Yes, I hate his ads, too.
He's a snappy dresser, that's all.
...Who is this Martin Fink I'm hearing so much about?
3.) The name is stupid and personifies what I hate about this machine and its community. Microsoft's marketing drones, in trying to decide how they'd market to drooling middle school gamers, thought "Well, gee, they'll see the '3' after Playstation 3 and think it's better than the '2' after X-Box 2. But we can't call it X-Box 3." Then they turn to their young, "dynamic" new guy they hired from an MTV marketing firm. "What would sound hardcore and hip to the kiddies?" "I've got it! It's better than 3, because it's 360!!!" And thus, a stupid market-drone name, X-Box 360, was born.
...I don't care that you're modded flamebiat, I hold generally the same opinion. I don't see someone's opinion as flamebait.... but either way.
This naming convention blows me away... though, I do think it rather clever that Nintendo played off of that with the name "Revolution", that is 360 as well.
Assuming they played off the name, in case...nevermind
somebody mod this up as informative or insightful... it might be rather funny to read, but it's exactly what they expect from us.
I certainly didn't mean that funny...though I certainly appreciate it that way as well.
...what was that quote about the government afraid of the people prevents the people afraid of the government?
It's a sad state of affairs in our government here. If these intrusions keep up at this rate the fabled 'joe six pack' will most certainly come to notice. Be it through known monitoring of his IM sessions, the tracking of his grocery purchases with his 'x saver' card, the easy availability of his cell-phone and SMS contents, the broadcast flag on his football games or the RFID in his walmart purchased jockey shorts.
He will eventually notice...but will it ever reach critical mass and make him want to disturb his bubble of complacency? I think it will, eventually... but, sadly, I think his threshold is painfully high.
Poor Joe Six Pack, of course... but even poorer are us 'early adopters' of the reality of what is going on here...speculative or not...
~Daneurysm
Will the coup be bloody?
Microsoft has announce a new technology where you can play the same game, but promise advanced features such as longer delays and larger images.
With innovative ideas and advanced gameplay like this, it is only a matter of time until Linux dominates not just the desktop market, but the gaming market as well.
Crap... why can't it be available for analog download too?
I really need a new computer...
try "Cadillac"... and I am _no_ fan of american autos...
I, personally, don't see anything all together wrong with that. It's far too easy to get wrapped up in minutea.. It's far too easy for us to become so engulfed by all of the details of any given situation that we can no longer see the forest for the trees.
Business has taught me this. Sometimes (most of the time) it's far more beneficial to drop some of the nit-picky details in favor of the 'big picture', especially if it affects others. Professionally or otherwise.
-Dan
I don't know how to feel about this...
I'm most certainly a 'geek', by all measures. I can't help but become totally immersed in whatever I find interesting...in depth and breadth.
However, I've always been noted for my ability to work best under pressure--without the pressure I either get nothing accomplished or I 'wander aimlessly forever'...I'm sure many of you can identify.
However, I'm an 'undercover.' Nobody I meet ever suspects that I have held engineer positions, owned my own business or spent multiple hours a day researching (anything of interest) in painful depth.
To sum it up, I think (without RTFA, admittedly) I think that it's far to dynamic of a subject to boil down to black-n-whites such as this.
But then again, perhaps I'm just not 'one of those'..."those" being the majority of geekdom.
colour me skeptical.
-Dan
Nothing personal... I try to stay away from "free service provider bashing"...if I don't like it, I'll not read it.
But, back to my main point:
What is this, be-bitchy-about-Slashdot-editors-week or something?
Uhh... You must be new here.
If it isn't pedantics of spelling and grammar, it's probably editor-bashing.
(yes, I understand the irony folks)
not neccesarily... harmonics located outside of our range of hearing have been shown to effect things we can hear.
...besides, I'd rather have all the frequencies I can get and selectively filter it out later than simply not have them. You never know what the future may hold for audio playback, and I would most certainly want the latest version of a recording if it were remastered to let some of those capabilities show.
I do not believe that analog is absolute infinite...simply 'practically infinite'.
...and I do do better with digital. I run preamps and compression/limiting on my inputs, increasing apperent dynamic range...through attentuate, et al..I try to stay analog on that side as well. It seems to detract from digital's 'cold harsh reality' drawback...though I hate the cheeziness factor of having a tiny tube preamp....;) ....they work wonders......I have been at this for 13 years now, on digital the entire time, sometimes supplanted by analog inputs...4-tracks, adats...etc...I defend analog, I'm a practical digital fan. Temper my rants with that in mind.
I'm fully aware of how a digital recording is captured, converted, played back, and the same in reverse.
I do not want soft clipping, I was merely arguing it as a 'feature' of the format...one that is arguably quite convenient.
Analog *is* frequency response...that's my entire point, and even given digital's obvious upperhand in so many other domains...and my nearly-entirely digital production environment...I still would prefer analog.
Digital, with the right equipment, can record far higher frequencies....conventionally....though, analog can match it easily given fatter tape width and faster tape speeds....(lets keep those heads running 'very high impact' a friend used to say in relation to tape-speed adjustment).
The wave is analog...
My preference, would it could down to dynamic range (in digital, that's your bit-depth) or frequency response (in digital, that's roughly half your sampling frequency...remember, a wave runs 360 degrees...-180 to +180).......would be dynamic range, where analog has reigned supreme so far....in going from 16-bit to 24-bit sampling I noticed a massive while 'subtle' difference...it just sounded more natural....add all the bits you want, it'll be decades before we beat 2" tape on dynamic range...and frequency response, once again, is another rant entirely...subject to my experiences and what I've read.
I don't know that I as much 'know what I am doing' so much as 'I have experiences that tell me X'
It's not so much benefit of overdriven analog as much as it is 'the breathing room provided', granted...this is circumstantial...depends on recording conditions (live, overdubbed, live show, maximum steady signal level, etc).....so far as benefit is concerned, I've recorded some of the juiciest guitar sounds on analog, overdriven (at the channel) far beyond what digital could have handled....and it distorted beautifully. Giving snares an extra 'snap' through added analog distortion (the only exception I can think of that has a digital-input-overdrive counterpart)...the natural compression.....and some guys rely on such artifacts of analog recording....decreases the need for an actual compresser on every channel...save that for the final out stage....if ever, depending on your mixing technique.
0db signifies the maximum signal you can record 'accurately'...on digital it turns into a very hard clip, on analog it induces tape-saturation. It sounds and feels very natural...as opposed to it's digital counterpart, which sounds cold, harsh, and unnatural....even evil.
Keep in mind, that's more on the 'creative production' side of things, and if you ever have to rely on tape-saturation to provide you with an accurate (or decent) recording, well, you lost the war a long time ago.
So far as accuracy is concerned...I've long noticed digital's tendency to be as pedantic about an input level as a slashdot troll about spelling...analog has, at this point--lack of tapes aside--still had the upperhand in the 'top end' and 'dynamic range' category...see my post about 'level of accesability' in this thread to see where that rant goes.
Though, all being said, I am wildly entertained by noticing and working with the differences associated with each medium....my studio being a highly hybrid (or inbred, as it were) combination of roughy 85% digital 15% analog...I simply can't afford the 'good stuff' in analog....though, even the 'cheap shit' often shatters 'digital guys' perceptions of what is possible....I liken it to 'audiophile types' perceptions to recordings made on what they would consider 'substandard equipment'....ask them to listen to it first, then ask them what they think it was recorded in....no matter who the producer, engineer, or masterer.....the results of such a test are always very flattering, and hysterical.
Analog recordings are subject to limitations of the recording medium. Frequency response, attenuation, noise, dynamic range, etc. The "pure wave" is just theoretical. Your analog recording is no more "pure" than a very high resolution digital recording. Both can resolve the original signal to a degree where any variations are far, far beyond your range of hearing. Both have caveats. If the digital signal can reproduce the analog wave to an accuracy far beyond what the human ear and mind can percieve, then the issue is moot. And it can.
;)
I agree with you... 100%... though, digital circuitry is just as subject to attenuation and noise...it is far more forgiving of the former, and for more 'workable' of the latter.
Digital is still subject to the same limitations of frequency response and dynamic range--in fact, the bit-depth and sampling frequency are direct results and/or measures of exactly that...keep in my your nyquist and filter roll-off...I know, I sound like a broken record...no pun intended.
My thing is, just because it is beyond our abilities of perception (or mere notice) does not in fact make it irrelevant. Regardless of whether I can hear it or not, I desire to have my purchased recordings descended from the accurate-as-possible-spec recording. While analog has many many many caveats and exceptions, and digital is 'too perfect for analog guys'...I understand, as I am not an analog guy...and that's not even with me going off on a tangent about how 'harmonic frequencies' far beyond our range of hearing have been found to affect our perception thereof.
I'm fully aware of the inconsistencies with analog recordable medium....and even given that, I still side with it. I know that every time you play it back you are helping degrade the quality of the recording....I know that 'magnetic media' is prone to a multitude of conditions...and will be imperfect from the get go.... ...but, it's hard to beat--even givin its very human-like inconsistencies and fallbacks.
...I've worked wonders remastering brutalized analog recordings....and worked wonders even I couldn't believe, but, for abused digital...while I've worked wonders, it still sounded like a finely polished piece of crap....caveat emptor
mod parent up.
...but you'll never beat that infinitely variable and infinitely dividable quality of analog.
Sure, my 96/24 pro-spec audio cards can record almost as well as my Tascam 4-track--think about that for a second--but, where is the cutoff and how sharp is the curve? (audio nerd joke)
I mean it in all seriousness....The 'as-good-as-it-can-possibly-get' analog technology stomps and huge hole in the 'as-good-as-it-can-possibly-get' digital technology. Period.
The second digital recording can accurately (read: perfectly) model the infinite level of amplitudinal variance granted to us by the analog domain...then I'll digress on this point. Even as a '95% digital' audio producer....and even then, I'm sure higher tape speeds and tape width would be an easy fix to stomp a hole in the digital champion.
It can end up being an infinite race to higher sampling frequencies.... (remember your nyquist in digital, half of the top sampling rate is your actual top end frequency...and lets not forget about filter rolloff....22k tops for good cards, in reality...fuck the spec sheet)