[Scott[_6_]]

On Jan 30, 5:06=A0am, Dick Pierce wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 06:22:53 -0800, vlad wrote
(in article ):
On Jan 28, 8:47=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
In the way he meant it - that unlike digital, analog is not confined b=
y a
fixed word length and sample rate, it does, indeed, have infinite
resolution.
=A0 ...
I realize that this analogy too is flawed,

=A0 It is not flawed , it is grossly incorrect, making this analogy
worthless. CD is not a container and analog is not a book.

It was an analogy, have you never heard of an analogy, a simplified way=
of
describing a very complex situation or process by using another, more
familiar point of reference? It was not supposed to be literal.

The analogy is completely innappropriate, does not in any way
analogously describe the reality of the basic, fundamental
properties of physical systems, is misleading and starts from
a wholly incorrect premise.

Your analysis of the analogy is completely incorrect since the analogy
was not intended to help understand "the reality of basic, fundamental
properties of physical systems." One has be aware of what an analogy
is being used for before one can make any kind of meaningful
assessment of the merits of that analogy. The analogy in question was
designed to help understand what Fremer was trying to say and what he
was thinking. Of course in audio it is better to divide and conquor
than to try to understand other peoples' points of view. Bteer to make
Fremer an enemy of audio and brand him a nut job who knows nothing
about audio other than price tags than to try to see his point of view
and learn something from it. What is the problem with that? I guess
it's more fun to ridicule than to learn.


That it is an analogy does not excuse the fact that it is,
indeed, grossly incorrect.


What is incorrect is you understanding of what the analogy was being
applied to.