Why is there no compact, user-friendly analog audio format?

>analog
Because there aren't enough autistic people to make it economically viable.

Can't find anything corroborating this.

I know that know device I owned had that capability, if it existed.

But there's enough to make vinyl economically viable?

By that logic you can't skip tracks with vinyl records as well. The better walkmans had a feature where it would skip until some extended silence, and take that as the beginning of the next track. Not perfect, but if the music was mastered for cassette, acceptably effective.

>By that logic you can't skip tracks with vinyl records as well.
...OK? I didn't come here to suck vinyl's dick. Because the shits are the size of dinner plates that's why I'm here

Attached: imagejpg46_zps60241787.jpg (800x533, 57K)

Vinyl being analog has literally nothing to do with it being popular again.

walkmancentral.com/glossary#AMS

44.1KHz 16bit lossless is enough for everything.

Ready, Able is their masterpiece

you ever eat off a vinyl?

The whole album is their masterpiece. Ready, Able is definitely one of the peaks though

OK but I feel like this doesn't qualify because it's not actually a feature of the *format*. It's a feature of a select number of playback devices and those devices aren't even operating on a standard interface/protocol/etc they're using their own proprietary logic to intelligently guess where tracks exist. I think that's pretty janky to be honest

Because music is by and large not recorded analog anymore. What would be the point?

This could be easily reconciled by introducing a standard for mastering firms to include x amount of silence in between tracks. Of course, no one cares about cassette anymore to actually do this, but it doesn't take much to include it in a device given an accepted standard

>grizzly bear
even /mu/ would laugh at you

>analog
Stop being retarded