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

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.

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?

I had to read the article given the debate about it going on. 
I found that other  than stating the obvious about records being a physical object that one can interact with ( and I would add much better than CDs in that regard which is a big factor)   I think  the article was a lot of conjecture and opinion and some flawed inferences. Little if anything concrete to back up the claims when it came to the discussion about sound. 
That’s Ok. It is what it is.   Just not particularly useful IMHO.