Explaining the "fundamentals" of digital audio without even mentioning Nyquist is always a bad sign. It is pretty much the first thing you learn when looking at the basics of how sampling audio works. This article demonstrates the author's complete ignorance of the basics, and it makes me cringe to think of the number of people who read stuff like this and help perpetuate the myths of how "digital" works.
Making a mistake while teaching is one thing, but having the entire explanation being rooted in a general misunderstanding, and using a convoluted, round about way to "teach" that is the worst form of misleading.
I understand this isn't a "technical" publication, but...
Mathieu Benoit wrote:macrae11 wrote:Yeah I was actually going to send Aaron an email after I read that a while back, but then didn't know what good would come of it.
Yeah, what is the point? I stopped arguing with people about their disillusions a few months ago. I feel much better letting people do whatever kind of crazy comes to mind. As long as they are not doing it on my property, I strongly encourage them to continue to living their truthiness.
I know what you mean about letting people go about their business with their version of craziness, but this kind of "paper" has the unfortunate ability to head newbs in the wrong direction because of it's affiliation with a fairly substantial publication. This was printed last year, and I hope someone has dropped a message to get some kind of rebuttal in the works.