Blurry photos is fine to make an stylistic choice. The 2019 movie The Lighthouse stylistically looked like a 1920s film, before modern music intentionally used bitcrushing, it used vinyl cracks, boomer shooters made in this decade intentionally look like 1990s Doom clones.

When a medium's shortcoming is patched by technology, it ultimately becomes an artifact of the era where it was accidental. Once a few years have passed, it becomes more synonymous with the era than the mistake.

It's not necessarily nostalgia, Gen Alpha and the younger half of Gen Z never grew up without smartphones, so they don't miss the era of poor film photography. Although every generation does this simulation of forgotten mistakes, it's particularly poignant now, where the high quality, perfectly lit, professional feeling photos convey something artificial, i.e. smartphone software emulating camera hardware, faces tuned with filters or outright AI generated content. Even if it's false imperfection, the alternative is false perfection.

Art using deliberate imperfections that were unavoidable in the past is romanticising something perceived as before commercialism, and that's admirable.

I burned a few CDs and put one of them in my car's CD player

It worked but I got hit with "tray error" when I tried ejecting it.

It's been stuck in there since april

With CDs they were negatively impacted by the loudness war as it became much more widespread. Having to hunt around for the right recording, often the earlier ones, can be expensive. Normalisation of the recordings by streaming companies is just an awful idea as it doesn't fix the bad parts of the mix just turns everything down.

I prefer SACDs to CDs, mostly because they tended to be mastered and mixed better than the CDs of the past two decades. The surround audio mixes are mostly just gimmicky, although they are a good fit for some records, but they almost always had a two channel mix that you could pick instead. The higher frequency range is mostly pointless.

All the people talking wonders about the "warmth", "tone", and other supposedly desirable qualities are very mistaken. What they are fawning over is noise, feedback, muddiness, lack of range, lack of definition, and so on. Vinyl records are shit. They make sound by literally scratching something.

I moved to all-digital music-making and -listening in the 90s, and agree that a lot of the "analog" benefits are imagined or the result of misunderstandings how technology works.

But I think you're missing the point. Don't forget that noise, feedback, muddiness, lack of range, lack of definition are all legitimate effects often intentionally applied to make music sound a certain way.

A cassette is objectively lower quality by sampling rate, reproducibility, etc, but you agree that it affects the sound. At that point, I think you have to admit that a contrary personal preference for cassette or vinyl is valid. It's not objectively "worse" because many people actually and validly find those "bugs" to be "features."

It's fine to like the digital revolution, but I'm just identifying you're making a value judgement, and others can rightly value differently.

CDs were a massive improvement, and the pinnacle were DDD CDs, which were Digital recording, Digital mixing, and Digital mastering, meaning very little analog garbage was introduced in the process.

Very little analog garbage... Except for literally every instrument tracked in, including distortion pedals. 😀

The only advantage of tape was, at the time, it's smaller size and portability

And not being read-only.

Also, you could spool them with a pencil.

You've completely missed the point.

You grew up in a world where the quirks of analog formats were nothing but technical limitations to be overcome. It is true that a FLAC is literally superior in every way to a Vinyl if your value function only takes in cost, quality, and convenience.

HOWEVER Gen Z grew up in a world where music was always cheap and convenient to access. We also (mostly) grew up in a world of touchscreens and always-online gadgets and doodads. My generation's first portable music player was often the iPod touch. You know what all of that does to a person? It creates a deep craving for tactile feedback. For technology that doesn't nag with software updates, for music that can't be "unlicensed" and pulled from your library remotely, for a music player that you can touch and feel and interact with in a more meaningful way than tapping on the little square of glass that already runs our lives. For the little rituals that have been stripped away, like flipping a vinyl at the midway point or rewinding a tape.

The entire point of analog is that it's "worse". It's un-clinical, it's raw, it's tactile, it's physical. Listening to my favorite albums on vinyl is such a better experience than through the disembodied shuffle of my phone. I don't crave maximum audio fidelity or convenience because I always could have those things literally whenever I want.

Your view is totally fine, but I guess you're not understanding why people do this. I'm a millennial, around 30. Personally I buy CDs, I buy vinyl, and I even have some stuff on tape. I've also recently picked up film photography and among my friends it's common nowadays to bring some 2000-2010 digicams.

So why? flac is perfect, and streaming services stream whatever high-quality music you'd ever want to play. Film is expensive, and digicams are often way more shit than whatever a modern smartphone that's already in your pocket can do.

Personally I've become bored by perfection, overwhelmed by choice, and frustrated with the lack of owning anything. When I play a physical album I sit down for it, I am focused on the music. I cannot easily choose the music, I'll just have to accept the order of the album. There are way fewer choices to overwhelm me. Likewise, with film photography, it feels simpler in a way. You shoot a few images in a go, because film isn't cheap, and you'll only get to see them weeks later when the roll is developed. No pressure of the perfect shot, no insane resolution to show any imperfection. And mistakes just happen, because you cannot see what you're doing, so you just have to accept them. Digitally you can just take 20 pictures and take the best one.

So back to music. Why would one prefer vinyl or tape over CD? As a life-long CD collector, I wondered the same thing a few years ago. But when artists that I enjoy started skipping CD releases in favor of vinyl I hopped in, invested in a shit vinyl player, and didn't really get it. Sure it had a character, but it wasn't great in any way. After some more research I found out that it was probably just the vinyl player (please don't get some cheap shit for a 100 bucks with a red unbranded needle). I invested in an Audiotechnica LP70XBT, and oh boy did stuff improve. I finally get it. The sound is gorgeous, though not necessarily better or worse than CD imo. It's a bit warmer, with detailed bass but less clinical high end. And I love the whole tactile experience of it. Older vinyl definitely sounds worse than modern CD quality though.

I think it's the whole experience that people enjoy. Putting the vinyl or cassette in the player, having something move and, as if it were magic, suddenly there's music. With a slightly different character that differentiates it from the clean and clinical sound of high quality digital audio. Modern digital audio is great and definitely has its place, but at times it can feel sterile, too perfect. The crackles and warmth of vinyl, the grain and slightly off colours of photographic film, they feel like they have more personality. They stem from a time where the imperfections of the medium still kinda hid the imperfections of the artist.

(Okay this turned into quite a ramble but I hope there's something useful in there :3 )

Ok, first: You do you.
Second: I'm not in possession of absolute truth.

But if I may, I'd like to share some of my experientially acquired knowledge.

On sound; I stand by my words. Why accept worse quality sound because the medium is inferior? Do whatever you want to post process, but having control. Want permanent "warmth"? Buy, or even better, build a tube amp. Pretty easy BTW. Want some sound characteristics? Get a proper equalizer and learn to use it. Want crackle? Well, really, that is something to discuss with your therapist.. BTW, what all people call warmth is just a slight bump in the 60-80 Khz range. I like many old amps, and speakers. I've actually designed and sold a few bespoke speaker systems. Some vintage Klipsch sets, with a refoaming are still astounding, but sources have gotten way better.

Regarding photography; I bought my first SLR, a Vivitar XV1 ( A Pentax K1000 copy) in the 80's. All manual, but with a built in light meter. From there I went on to a Pentax , then another, then Pentax's first autofocus, and the worlds first SLR with a pop-up flash, often derided as a gimmick, but amazingly useful, the mighty SF1, I also had a Nikon F601 with a couple of lenses and a Old school 6x6 Bellows Zeiss. I've developed quite a bit. I kind of know my stuff.

Analog photography is not superior, but different. It's absolutely true that the limited amount of film, and the cost of developing, promotes thoughtful composition, framing, and anticipation. Selecting the right film, understanding your lenses, and, crucially, undesrtanding that the most important piece of kit is the lens, 2nd the tripod, and then the body,
helps a lot in getting superior photographs. If you know what you want, understand your film, your camera, your kit, you can get results unmatchable by digital, no matter how much post-processing. What, why, how, are necessary ingredients in film photography.

That said, I would think, compose, etc the photo in my mind, and then shoot bursts, the ask for a contact sheet, and choose what I wanted for prints. No need to gamble all on the speed of your index finger. Film was the cheapest variable in the equation, except for Kodachrome, the GOAT of films. Fuji makes some very good film, but Kodachrome was beyond anything.

Kodachrome 64, and occasionally 25, how I miss you! those films demanded discipline, but the rewards were astounding.

Yes, in some respects, film is still superior to digital, ***IF ***you understand the medium, kit, process, and thinking.

A digital compact? Fine, but get one of the later ones. Advice from someone who bought and used an Olympus 1.2 Mpx fixed lens in 1999. There is NOOOO redeeming value in an early digital, except.... Yeah, NONE.

Anecdote: I recently saw a kid, floating around his friends, taking pics with an old point-and-shoot. The cringe was strong. I was thinking, "Jeez, kid! I'm all for film, but buy an actual reflex with a proper lens, they are cheap as fuck in second hand marketplaces!!

Don't listen to "audiophiles" otherwise literally no audio equipment is ever good, and it becomes a who can spend the most money contest.

A cassette player from FiiO will sound absolutely great and work fine.

Another one of those pointless articles… Cassettes have been on the rise for a couple of years now, and for the same reasons that vinyl has been making a comeback; mainly fake nostalgia and the yearning for true ownership in form of physical media.

No. Cassettes sound like shit. They are a very lossy format. Vinyl actually sounds different in ways that people like. My vinyl collection has nothing to do with nostalgia (I grew up after CDs were on the rise). On a solid system, there's a lot more fidelity in the bass on vinyl.

she make her money from concerts and licensing fees. not music sales

most artists income these days comes from concerts. music sales aren't money makers anymore the way they used to be.

oh maybe, i'm not actually a Swift fan. i'm just here for cassette talk. XD

i tend to get my new cassettes for around €7-€12.

word, exactly.

i tend to get them from Bandcamp on Bandcamp fridays, if you're interested.