3 ms·

also it's gold so it might live longer no ?

• Aloha 9y ago
  Quite arguably a mechanically reproduced record is better than digital.
  • rlpb 9y ago
    If your argument is along the lines of what I think it is, then this is a fallacy. See "Sampling fallacies and misconceptions" in https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html "All signals with content entirely below the Nyquist frequency (half the sampling rate) are captured perfectly and completely by sampling; an infinite sampling rate is not required. Sampling doesn't affect frequency response or phase. The analog signal can be reconstructed losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing of the original analog signal."
    • Aloha 9y ago
      No, thats not it at all. Analog reproduction is far less complex and easier to explain in pictures to an unknown entity that might find it. Figure that they'll need to build what effectively amounts to a record player to play the thing back. In addition there was no digital technology of the time with a large enough capacity to store what we sent, or that was durable enough to deal with an unknown time in space. Quality of the reproduction is not a consideration.