Article: "Spin Me Round: Why Vinyl is Better Than Digital"

Magister,

Come on bud. There is literally no information in that article. Nothing. Some hand waving with 0 attachment to the real world at all. None. And given just a PhD candidate, not in signal processing, there is more than a small chance that her practical understanding of Nyquist and real world systems is very weak. Right now you just come across as clutching at straws and taking 6-8 paragraphs to do it. Please learn some brevity. Any point you may have is lost in the noise.

Ok i will be short...

Humans are not reducible to numbers....Or apparatus...

Perception of timbre is a subjerctive/objective complex problem...

Reducing it to Nyquist theorem is ridiculous...

She also think so...



His article was not INTENDED to be for specialist then repeating that there is no new information there is bad faith...

His own human experience is speaking in the article intended for ordinary people and it is interesting and well put... and i cite his article because being a mathematician she knows about Nyquist theorem which only imply elementary mathematic for a mathematician by the way and ordinary people here who dont embark in any boat may be interested to read that....

By the way you quit the last time why are you coming back?

To critic for incompetence a general public article?

If someone is incompetent it is me by the way, not her.... Then be direct and candide and said so... Do not zig zag and said untruthful thing about someone who is not only competent but humanly modest in an intended  GENERAL public article..... I am not fond of distorted argument...

Humans are not reducible to numbers....Or apparatus...

Perception of timbre is a subjerctive/objective complex problem...

Reducing it to Nyquist theorem is ridiculous...

She also think so...

No, this is what she says.

But the limitations of math in replicating reality may factor in to the difference in listening experiences reported by so many vinyl lovers.

And guess what. She is NOT qualified to say that. The limitations of math have nothing to do with the problem. It is purely implementation which she appears quite ingnorant about.  She shows virtually no practical knowledge on the subject (not even a good theoretical understanding).

When it comes to storing sound as a digital file, however, the limited capacity of computers is a problem. Sound waves contain an infinite number of points. Computers cannot store infinite amounts of information.

And in this statement she just shows herself to be yet another academic trying to look smart outside her area of expertise.

Infinite points implies infinite bandwidth and infinite signal to noise. You assume she understands Nyquist but I posit she has as best cursory knowledge. It's not standard curriculum for mathematics. Ditto likely ignorant w.r.t Shannon's theorem.

You are interpretating what you want to and assigning expertise where no actual evidence of it exists.

But the limitations of math in replicating reality may factor in to the difference in listening experiences reported by so many vinyl lovers.

This intelligent woman know that the map is not the territory...
Is it difficult to understand?

And in this statement she just shows herself to be yet another academic trying to look smart outside her area of expertise.

You attibute to her something that describe your attitude....It is yourself reducing human timbre perception to a mathematical theorem taken like an absolute...Acoustic is NOT signal theory....

It is also the fallacy of accuracy, meaning that in no way we can attribute an absolute signification to numbers out of any human experience in the first and last place...

Elementary epistemology....




She speak here about the mathematical translation of ANYTHING analog in digital, using Nyquist theorem , that is to say using a FINITE amount of information to store ANY infinite continuous sound wave... This is the same thing that you already said from the beginning, not surprizing because this is linked to the content of the Nyquist theorem, then how can you accuse her of incompetence?

because humans only hear sounds within a certain range of frequencies, we can get rid of any other frequencies that may show up in a sound wave’s decomposition and still get back the original sound. So the sampling theorem explains how to use a finite amount of information to store any sound wave.

This is what she really said about fourier and Nyquist, and you think that i am stupid or what ?

This is the gibberish you attribute to her in place of what she just said in the citation i just use:

Infinite points implies infinite bandwidth and infinite signal to noise. You assume she understands Nyquist but I posit she has as best cursory knowledge

You are interpretating what you want to and assigning expertise where no actual evidence of it exists.

Like i said be honest and accuse me of incompetence... I will accept because i am not a scientist even iy you wre stupid i will accept this fact that i am not competent in signal theory or mathematic...But dont distort what she said for your purpose... Annd being incompetent dont make me stupid by the way...i know more mathematic than you do it seems....

And you are incompetent anyway at least in philosophy of science and in elemantary philosophy.... it is as big as the nose of Cleopatra... She is not....

Human perception can never be reduced to measuring apparatus...Nyquist or not...

Phenomena are not identical to their map....

Is it not simple?