Organs (and I mean "real" organs), are completely analogue, they're mechanical analogue instruments that produce sound that is completely in the analogue domain. A real clock is an analogue mechanical instrument designed for time-keeping, whereas a real organ is a mechanical analogue instrument designed for producing sound completely in the analogue domain.
You don't see the beauty in what I said?
No, you don't, cause you mentioned YouTube. The whole point of what I said about being able to capture and replay the sound completely in analogue, completey flew past you. This is why you will never convince analogue followers that there's a better system. But there isn't one, the real world is analogue, the real world is not digital. A real guitar is analogue, a real piano is analogue, a human is analogue as is the voice produced by one. They all do the same thing, produce sound that is completely in the analogue domain, not needing conversion in order for you to hear it.
As for a Moog synthesizer, well, being an electronic analogue instrument, not a mechanical analogue one, I would simply amplify the analogue output it produces in order to hear it. But that's not conversion, that's just basic amplification (again, completely analogue). Amplifying an analogue signal using analogue amplification is a completely different thing to what digital is doing, where it's converting computer language to something humans can hear (a process that requires analogue technology in order for the end result to work, btw).
So I'm still waiting for you to explain why, if digital were the daddy, how come it can't exist without analogue?
See, digital is not the daddy after all. You cannot answer that question without losing the Analogue Vs Digital debate, which is why no one ever answers it if they're on the digital bandwagon. Doing so would surely bring instantaneous death to the digital myth.
So I tried to save you, but man, you won't accept that real is better than fake. We both know the reason is that if you do, then you have to accept that analogue is superior to digital.
It is, but that's not what I'm getting at. The Analogue Vs Digital debate is about which is the superior technology. I don't need any of those things to enjoy analogue. I buy on vinyl and record to tape using a three-head cassette deck. I even get to enjoy those analogue recordings in the car and on the move, thanks to a car cassette deck and a personal cassette walkman that fits in my pocket. I jumped on the CD bandwagon just like others did, but I knew from the first time I heared one that it was no match for a vinyl record, or indeed the sound I was getting from my cassettes. I only ever purchased one CD player for a car. It was in there less than a week before I ripped it out and put the cassette system back in.
I'm also rest assured that my format of choice cannot be taken away. I don't do digital downloads or any of that DRM nonsense. When I buy a record, I own it, I do what I want with it and record it to whatever I want. So there you go, all those years after CD almost killed off vinyl, it is back and is outselling "digital" CD. It's what the analogue guys knew all along, and one of the reasons they continued to buy vinyl while the majority were out purchasing CDs and digital downloads. Like I said, you cannot beat real.
Anyway, I just want to point out that this thread was split from another thread. It's important I point that out otherwise people might think I started an Analogue Vs Digital debate thread. These debates ultimately always end the same way. Analogue being superior, but digital lovers refusing to accept it. It also ends up looking like the one in favour of analogue is against digital, even though that is often not the case (and is certainly not the case here). So for me, digital is truly awesome, but analogue is the superior technology.
Analogue is the daddy.