Would vinyl even be invented today?

12-17-14: Czarivey
yea dood, we tryin' we're all obsessed with placing a needle, flipping a record that sometimes has only one song on each side or same song with different mixes, scratching it, then replacing this needle, upgrading, cleaning, shelving, storing... wtf? why?

... for the same reason that I long ago realized synthetic blend no-iron shirts weren't worth the convenience. I'll gladly spend 10 mins. ironing a nice all-cotton shirt that will feel good all day the same way I'll take a little time to make sure my records and stylus are clean to have a far more emotionally involving musical experience.

It's the listening, that's why.

BTW, there are many things based on old technology that continue to thrive. Somebody mentioned the internal combustion engine, but it's survived alternatives such as steam power, the Wankel rotary engine, and the turbine engine, all of which generated a lot of press but ultimately came to little in automobiles.

The grand piano of today was pretty much perfected around 120 years ago. A 1900 Steinway 9' grand is competitive with a new one made (the same old way) today. In fact, CBS Musical Instruments tried to improve the Steinway by replacing the 19th century-based felt bushings in the piano action with Teflon sleeves. It turned out the old technology (felt) was superior because the Teflon would make the action stick in humid weather.

The principle of sound energy etching a wax cylinder may be well over 100 years old, but the refinement into the stereo LP (itself now 56 years old) is capable of transporting you to the performance and achieving a great sense of musical satisfaction. It is also able to do it economically and provides a durable, space-efficient (relative to the data density it contains) medium.

A mechanical means of recording sound vibrations was bound to happen eventually in history. Who knows? Perhaps past civilizations discovered a way to record vibrations but the technology was lost. Vacuum tubes were an extension of the light bulb. Electronic amplification was sought after to both extend the range of the wired telegraph as well as the newfangled telephone.

Color television has always had the limitation of having a screen door effect. ie. the picture tube had discreet dots (and lines of resolution). The change from analog to digital was really just the means of conveying the signal. HDTVs have the same screen door effect- just more dots, like 4-5 million now versus thousands in the early color TVs. So comparing analog/digital TV to audio isn't really an equal comparison.

If I cover 3/4 of my 55" HDTV I will get even less pixels than my old Sony Triniton, but picture is still far, far superior. It is not amounts of dots but quality of the picture/process. HDTV uses the same amount of bandwidth as analog TV but delivers much more data (compression) not to mention accuracy of the colors (NTSC = Never Twice Same Color), no relections/double edges, no snow etc. If you really think that analog TV set with more pixels would perform as well as HDTV then you are in real denial.

Terabytes of digital data on an analog record....now there is some weird science.

Abucktwoeighty, I went to Wikipedia and it said basically what you said about Rube Goldberg. I always thought that Rube Goldberg was a fictitious name. I never knew it was actually a person. Thanks for the heads up.