Harley quote

It is absolutely unquestionable beyond any shadow of a doubt that digital, especially anything approaching high res can far far more accurately reproduce an ANALOG waveform than can a vinyl playback system or reel-to-reel. And let’s be honest, that is all they are doing, recreating an analog waveform. No more, no less. All these flowery words about the ear, human perception, etc. is meaningless. All these devices do is recreate an analog waveform.

The problem here is NOT about the reproduction of a waveform coming from microphones...Nyquist theorem is a THEOREM first about Fourier translation not about human perception first... Matter closed...

The problem is that TIMBRE is also a mathematical modelling concept in acoustic and this modelling concept is there for an acoustician which try to understand a very complex concrete event JUDGED and evaluated by the human ears/brain and pertaining to the way a complex materials (a stradivarius) reproduce a musical tone in a specific acoustical dimension... The musical event consist in the fact that the note is not only a pitch accuracy but a more complex phenomenon, the sound of a stradivarius making his note is not the sound of a cheap violin producinfg the same note.... In the case of a stradivarius producing a note in a church, versus a cheap violin....

Then because no live musical event can be reproduced WITHOUT some lost of information, the fact that high resolution digital could reproduce to the perfection the analog waveform of any microphones, this fact cannot erase the fact that the microphones cannot register TOTALLY the concrete timbre event, for the very reason by which each microphones type has his own’s limitations and by reason of their specific locations.... All these choices, i will recall also mixing choices , alter the ORIGINAL timbre experience of the musical living event...

Take the Nyquist theorem, put it on a shelve for a second and think about reality :Timbre.....

Acoustic is the study of what human ears experience....Then timbre is NOT a "flowery word" save for someone ignoring acoustic....It is not only a brain/ears specific experience but a very mathematically complex concept for which science use not only Fourier analysis but many other complex tools...

I apologize to answering a post way above after dinosaurs, floods and cables discussion....

I will give 10:1 odds that people who use the same words, over and over in their posts, like fourier transform, or nyquist, have probably no real practical work where they have had to use fourier transforms or given serious consideration to how their system will be impacted by nyquist limits and subharmonic modulation. When your only tool is a hammer, you keep pulling it out of the bag. Problem is, someone only told them it was a hammer. It was really a wrench.

douglas_schroeder,

"Of course, glupson, you will default to the most extreme, invalid comparisons, completely ignoring the context. What else would be expected of you? Pathetic."

It is a bit strange that a person who brought Biblical stories about the great flood into the thread about aftermarket power cords is complaining about me going to extremes and ignoring the context. Are you practicing for a sit-down comedy show?

The community can see clearly that 1. I responded to the initial negative comments by others in regard to religion and audio. 2. I presented a book that has scientific backing (A degreed geologist, oil industry data from wells drilled, analysis of plate tectonics, etc.) which attempts to show a coherent analysis of the Flood and supports it with lithographic evidence.

Further, I have attempted to return the discussion to the topic at hand. 

"Further, I have attempted to return the discussion to the topic at hand."

What an attempt...

"I’m deeply religious, reading a great scientific book right now called Carved in Stone which uses petroleum industry data to assess the Earths lithography. Yup, there was a global Flood. Mockers will always mock what they do not understand, and a favorite trick is to use a false dichotomy between religion and science."

By the way, reading what you wrote in subsequent posts, the book and the findings you conveyed do not support "global flood". I am not saying it did not happen, but only that three continents do not make a globe.