> With due respect (and perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you say), this
> statement is completely false. Digital "achieves a wave" perfectly,
> provided you sample the wave at twice the highest frequency you're
> trying to capture. Flaws can be introduced in the conversion (A/D and
> D/A) steps, but these are quantifiable (and appear simply as
> correlated noise), there's no missing, magic, "element of wave-ness"
> that a digital representation lacks.
>
This is what I'm thinking.
Think of a perfect sine wave on an old analog oscillator.
Digital is in essence a series of ones and zeros. To duplicate that analog
sine wave digitally, you are limited to those ones and zeros--up and over.
The higher the sampling rate, the smaller those steps--kinda like how you
would get "jaggies" on fonts a few years ago. Monitors have improved so
things don't look all pixelesque, just as A/D converters have improved in
their "resolution".
I am curious to learn exactly how sampling at twice the highest frequency
changes things. I'm trying to visualize it, but I can't grasp it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
