[KH]

On 1/29/2011 6:09 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 09:11:01 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in ):

Audio Empire wrote:

snip

and that the capacity of the standard CD
digital system is fixed and at a rate that is
considerably short of infinite,

JUST LIKE ANY AND EVERY ANALOG SYSTEM.

it is nonetheless ample in its "finite-ness" to
adequately contain the music that humans can hear.



Yes Mr. Pierce, we all realize how much you know about this subject, but is
your zeal to show-off, you have managed to TOTALLY miss the point here. My
analogy was just that. An attempt to explain the idea that I think Fremer was
trying to get across when he said that analog is infinite. I was neither
trying to explain how digital worked nor making any odious comparisons. Yes,
it was simplistic (as is Fremer's statement) but that's what I was describing
- Fremer's simplistic idea of the difference between analog and digital and
why he might see it that way. Sheesh, doesn't anybody read these posts for
MEANING any more?

I think the the whole point is that Fremer, in making such a statement,
is waxing authoritative on a subject that; A) he knows nothing about, or
at least his knowledge is seriously flawed, or B) he's being
disingenuous about in order to further a personal agenda, or C) he's
writing using terminology he doesn't understand, or is purposely
misusing. None of these scenarios is particularly supportive of his
role as an equipment reviewer IMO.

Your analogy may indeed be apt relative to Fremer's understanding and
use of "resolution". That would put him in Case A above.

But to your question yes, I understood your analogy was about "Fremer",
not analog vs digital resolution. I just don't see the utility of an
analogy designed solely to illuminate the *manner* in which someone
misunderstands such a clearly defined term.

Keith