Re: These are not the pixels you are looking for.
"Incidentally, for what it's worth, as you are an analogue person, analogue colour signal transmissions were also heavily compressed using PAL, Secam or NTSC due to the way colour was encoded into the video signal. It's one of the myths of analogue folk that somehow their preferred method of transmission somehow contains more information when, in practice it's the reverse. Just Try squeezing an HD analogue video stream into the bandwidth used by a digital HD stream..."
NTSC and PAL both work IIRC by emphasizing the luma quality over the chroma quality, and that's due to experiments that show we're more sensitive to luma detail than chroma detail. That's also why MPEG-based codecs also emphasize the luma over the chroma (thus YUV ratios like 4:2:2 and 4:2:0). To transmit 30 frames of raw 24-bit RGB video and 1 second og 16-bit 48kHz 2.0 Stereo audio, both uncompressed, requires, at a minimum, 249.6MB of storage and bandwidth. And that's PER SECOND. I would be curious to know, for the record, just how much digital information one could've crammed in the frequency allocations provided for one analog PAL or NTSC channel, to see whether or not it would've been enough to carry that much data at a time.
As for the analog insistence of audiophiles, I believe the issue is not so much bandwidth as it is tonal idisyncracies. Some people DO have a very sensitive ear, I understand. Has anyone conducted a scientifically-significant study to see if audiophiles really can tell the difference between a good analog audio setup and a good digital one.