[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

On 2/14/2011 6:54 AM, Kele wrote:
we know that converting to digital involves
rounding to the nearest whole.

And if that's indeed what we "knew", we would
indeed be wrong. While it seems intuitively
correct, it is simply not the case.

Any number of sources have been available for
long before the advent of the CD demonstrating how
this "rounding to the nearest whole" notion is
incorrect. Indeed check Blesser's article in the
late 1970's as to how any properly implemented
digital system can capture information substantially
below the "nearest whole." And he was hardly the
first to describe a process which was, at that
point, a well-understood principle in any number of
disciplines. Definitive articles on the principle
date back at least to the mid-1960's.


Cannot a laser light track a continuous groove (sound wave)?

Ask Finial how their turntable is going. Oh, wait, they're
out of business, never having sold a one.

If the signal didn't have to be converted to mathematics,
there can be greater chance to approach live.

Again, all due respect, while this might seem an
intuitive, comfortable view of how it works, it is
naive and simply is not the case.

And, using your analogy nonetheless, how is, for
example, an analog computer any less "mathematical"
than a digital computer?