Page 2 of 2

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:20 pm
by krabapple
Xenu wrote:Just checked it out...yeesh. And because I CAN make inappropriate political comparisons here: isn't the argument of "well, you may not like OUR way of doing things, but instead of debunking try to think up your own idea!" basically the Iraq argument all over again?

Just because you think Nyquist is insufficient doesn't mean I have to come up with a new theory to explain your perception.


Anyone who thinks *Nyquist* -- the theorem -- is insufficient, that it 'misses something' about the signal, is clueless. But those who think the *Redbook Nyquist limit* -- 44.1 kHz -- is insufficient for reproducing the audible band, are making a slightly more sophisticated argument (though they're often clueless too, as with that hillbilly Johnny B in the Lavry thread).


Vinyl=analog bothers me, too. What does "analog" sound like, exactly? And whenever I hear people start waxing rhapsodic about how "silken" cymbols sound on their preferred medium, I have to wonder whether they've actually ever heard someone thwack a cymbol.



Analog is *tape* first and foremost -- that's where 99.9% of all that beloved old vinyl was mastered from.

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:24 pm
by krabapple
Andreas wrote:What I really don't like are meta-discussions that distort the claimed theories and arguments. Several posters claim that other posters claim that it can be proven that digital sounds indistinguishable from analog, which is completely false (both the claim and the meta-claim).



The lack of qualification of arguments -- particularly the arguments attributed to the 'other side' - is pathetic. I'm just waiting for 'objectvists say all amps sound the same' to pop up.