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

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?

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. 

That’s Ok. It is what it is. Just not particularly useful

It is not useful for the debate but it is interesting because she know what the theory of signal is...and she speak humanly about this debate without BIAS....


Mapman you are right then ... It is ONLY intended for the general public not to end the debate... I read her and consider interesting the fact that like me she does not condemn turntable afficionados in the name of "science" nor she proclaim that some science derived from by Nyquist theorem posit an absolute fact: digital is the only way...She only interrogate herself thats all in all modesty, knowing that mathematic so useful it is is not reality...

She only relate his human experience vulgarizing elementary fact for the gemeral reader that’ s all...



Now the interesting fact here, is that a vinyl dogmatic said few posts above that the article is bad, and now the other digital dogmatic said the same exact thing , the article is bad...

What is comical is the 2 dogmatics use the same distorted argument , incompetence, and falsified what she said...





« Atheist and hard religious believers are like identical sausage burned on the fire of blind faith»-Anonymus Smith

i will translate it for an audio forum:

Analog zealot and digital fool are identical janus brothers, a MYSTERY cannot be reduced to subjective impression nor to a sequence of numbers ONLY....

What is the mystery?

The distance between numbers and human perceived phenomena is the unfathomable mystery....