Digital vocabulary

[DiapDealer]

I'm fairly certain "sh!tpot full" isn't going away anytime soon.

[QuantumIguana]

I don't see language like "tons" disappearing in the forseeable future. It communicates effectively, for the vast majority of people "I have tons of pictures on my computer" doesn't give them pause. It communicates effectively, and language usage favors phrasing that communicates data most efficiently and clearly. People realize that the pictures don't literally have any weight, but that doesn't impede communication. Metaphors are a very important part of language. Most people aren't that interested in the details of what is going on in the circuitry, the metaphor is what interests them.

We use all sorts of physical metaphors which don't literally apply, and it doesn't give the slightest problem. We talk about windows, folders and files; these are useful metaphors. That's a good point about the floppy disk being used as an icon for saving, even though the floppy is obsolete. There are people who understand that icon without ever having actually used a floppy disk. I suspect that it will remain for some time, there's no other image which is obviously better. If there was an image that inherently conveyed the idea of saving, it might get adopted, but absent that, the floppy disk icon is as good as any.

We say digital, but we don't really care that it is digital. We would use analog computers, but we instead chose to use digital. The distinction we are really making isn't between digital and analog, but between physical and electronic. Digital is exact for some things, but not for others. 01000001 is an exact representation of the letter A. But for music, digital is inexcact. In principle, analog can deliver the most accurare sound.

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

But for music, digital is inexcact. In principle, analog can deliver the most accurare sound.

What principle would that be?

[QuantumIguana]

Sound is inherently analog. Digital can only approximate the sound.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

1s and 0s aren't abstract; they're very specific, an exact number for an exact value; as opposed to analog, which is designed to land you "somewhere around" your target with some margin of error assumed... analog is much more abstract, whereas digital is accuracy. Just sayin'.

And the thing about new idioms is... they eventually become old idioms.

No. Analog is continuous, digital is discrete. With digital you will always lose higher frequencies of any signal so analog will always have higher accuracy.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Sound is inherently analog. Digital can only approximate the sound.

Yeah, but from that point of view do you really think a needle bouncing in a vinyl groove or a voltage going through tape head is an ACCURATE analog recreation of a 100 instruments generating their own unique analog waves across a concert hall?
The only ACCURATE analog reproduction would be another orchestra playing in an identical space!

The only REAL argument for analog being objectively better than digital is the idea that there is a magical quality of music that can't be digitized...like a soul or something.
Maybe there is, but I'm staying with my digital audio.

ApK

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by ApK

Yeah, but from that point of view do you really think a needle bouncing in a vinyl groove or a voltage going through tape head is an ACCURATE analog recreation of a 100 instruments generating their own unique analog waves across a concert hall?
The only ACCURATE analog reproduction would be another orchestra playing in an identical space!

The only REAL argument for analog being objectively better than digital is the idea that there is a magical quality of music that can't be digitized...like a soul or something.
Maybe there is, but I'm staying with my digital audio.

ApK

I'm not arguing in favor of analog. Just stating that it is, in principle, more accurate than digital. In practice, flaws in the recording medium will cause the analog recording to suffer, while a CD and have flaws and still be just as clear.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I'm not arguing in favor of analog. Just stating that it is, in principle, more accurate than digital. In practice, flaws in the recording medium will cause the analog recording to suffer, while a CD and have flaws and still be just as clear.

Funny thing, aptly-named Iguana: When you strive for physical exactness, you eventually get to the quantum level, where analog reality becomes digital, and digital values become imprecise.

Go figure. Just can't win.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by ApK

The only REAL argument for analog being objectively better than digital is the idea that there is a magical quality of music that can't be digitized...like a soul or something.

I can't believe that you used "objectively" and "magical" in the same sentence.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by ApK

Funny thing, aptly-named Iguana: When you strive for physical exactness, you eventually get to the quantum level, where analog reality becomes digital, and digital values become imprecise.

Go figure. Just can't win.

No, reality doesn't become digital at any level.

[DiapDealer]

What's the latest idiom for thread derailment?

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

No. Analog is continuous, digital is discrete. With digital you will always lose higher frequencies of any signal so analog will always have higher accuracy.

CDs have a sampling rate which is about twice the frequency of the highest frequency sound that humans can hear which some claim is not high enough to accurately reproduce higher frequency sound. Nevertheless digital audio with higher sampling rates can reproduce higher frequencies with higher accuracy.

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

What's the latest idiom for thread derailment?

Running off the rails?

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Sound is inherently analog. Digital can only approximate the sound.

Sound occurs as a change in pressure initiated by vibration of a material. Since all materials are made up of discrete elements, I posit that sound is inherently digital

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by ApK

I'll also point out that we happily use idioms today that derive from things that are long obsolete. The phone dial, as was mentioned. We also whip things into shape, though few of us have ever driven a horse or abused a slave, and we still go the whole nine-yards, even though no one can seem to agree on what that nine-yards originally referred to.

That being said, just a few days ago, before seeing this thread or that "old folks icons" link, I stared at my computer screen wondering why a 3.5" floppy persisted as a save icon.

Most of our computer-related idioms come from the office environments where most computers first appeared to mainstream users. That's where floppy icons to denote saving came from.

Now electronic devices are being introduced directly to consumers, so office-related idioms are being replaced with more human-friendly idioms... lie "tweeting," "texting" and "browsing."

But again, use of a phrase by a popular or famous person can result in a new popular idiom; take, for example, the congressman who publicly referred to the internet as "a bunch of tubes," which has resulted in the web being referred to as "tubes" or "pipes." New idioms could end up being developed from the pipe metaphor.

And we could get a new idiom at any time from a television show, a popular comedian, a clueless politician, a supermodel, a pop music icon or a cartoon character. It's an essentially random process; guessing the new idioms is like guessing the next hit movie or top-10 pop tune.