Yes, it is annoying but you can't say it is false. What is annoying is that he is actually right in practice. Most software developers including those in the in

Yes, it is annoying but you can't say it is false. What is annoying is that he is actually right in practice. Most software developers including those in the industries where it should matter, do not care about latency or realtimeness, because in practice these things are so hard that no one really wants to pay developer time to bring latency from 100 ms back to 5 ms where it should be. There are good technical reasons to go digital, and in theory, no drawbacks. Yet, is pisses me off that I need to boot a motherf%*$cking oscilloscope and wait several seconds. I have spent the first years of my career at an AR company whose constant worry was to lower latency and maximize increase rate. I know this stuff is hard and as an unrecognizable handicap I now have an eye for all the small glitches in video: occasional fps slip, brief shearing, dropped frame, etc... I have yet to find a giant advertisement screen that had none of these. Most people think 60 ms latency and 30 fps is good enough but let me tell you, we had a very different kind of reactions when we had less than 16 ms of latency (i.e. "one frame") and 60 fps display (or rather that annoying 59.94 Hz that TV asked us and forced us to feed to the software through a specific clock plug). When people talk about the "analog feel", that's what they mean: full fps (usually 50Hz in Europe, 59.94Hz in US an Japan) and <16 ms latency. No glitch, no shear (though analog system can shear) and no framedrops. Very few digital systems actually live up to that standard.