[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Scott wrote:
On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:05:12 PM UTC-8, KH wrote:
On 2/13/2013 3:10 PM, Scott wrote:
from which it is
abundantly clear that the OP was decidedly Not implying "digital is
perfect", merely that if "done perfectly" - an impossibility - the
resulting waveform would be perfect, which IS clearly supported by
information theory.

Really? So you don't believe in quantization error?

Hold it, part of your confusionm is clear. Several points:

1. Sampling and quantization are two different processes,
that can be treated completely separate from one another.
Sampling does not case quantization errors. It can create
errors IF the original signal is improperly band
limited before sampling. If properly band limited, it
will not create errors.

Now, you can argue whether or not the original filtering
is the issue, but that's a separate argument, in fact.

2. Quantization without at least simple dithering, yes, does
create quantization errors, but NO ONE in their right minds
(high end community excepted, of course) does such a thing.

And propoer dithering or noise shaping eliminates (not, not
masks, not covers up, rather ELIMINATES as in "makes it go
away) quantization error. WHat you are left with is a simple
noise floor with resolution extending well below the least
significant bit of resoltuion.

And of course, you excised the context of the statement as well, in that
it was a response to the ludicrous claim that "...converting an analog
signal into a discrete-time one (as it happens when converting from
analog to digital) destroys the phase information in the two top octaves
of the resulting spectrum. In a CD-standard digital recording, all phase
information are lost from 5.5kHz up to 22kHz,"

I don't see how the quote you provided has ANY relevance to your claim.

People often see what they want to see.

Yes, apparently they do.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+