A very good ENGINEERING explanation of why analog can not be as good as digital..

@kijanki

Absolutely true, except for a tiny niggle. The signal’s got to have a continuous Fourier transform, which is even smoother than continuous.

But don’t bother engineers with theorems. I’ve never met one who didn’t say, "Oh, but we get around that by ...". Which, to a mathematician or scientist, is laughable.

Thanks for stating ’what should be obvious’, Kijanki. There are too few of us.

I like chocolate cake. My wife likes vanilla cake. My kids like marbled cake as long as it has frosting with sprinkles.

There are so many mistakes in the information of the infomercial that it made me laugh.

How many of you have actually had an analog master, not a copy but a master. Then listened to a comparison between the original master tape, a lacquer, and a CD on a great system. Unless you have, how can you support your claims or statements. I have done this. The answer is even the best CD transport an DAC will not compete with the master tape. If you cannot pick out the difference go get your hearing checked. You ask about my experience, I come from the days before digital. On the other hand I was recording digital data before CD's were available.

No matter what the resolution and data rate a digital representation of a sound, it will always be an approximation of the original event. Whether or not you can detect the difference is a question of psycho-acoustics and has a lot to do with how good a persons hearing is. So if you start with a digital recording of "Red Book" specifications don't bother with a vinyl pressing.

Lol. Yawn. 

No matter what the resolution and data rate a digital representation of a sound, it will always be an approximation of the original event.

+1,  Tom1000