Klarinet Archive - Posting 000742.txt from 1997/11

From: Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.net>
Subj: Re: Nyquist list
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:44:38 -0500

>Apparently, the digital data discussion has exceeded the
>bounds of immediate relevance to the clarinet. I received
>20 messages from Klarinet this morning dealing exclusively
>with the Nyquist Theorem. It's possible to draw connective
>threads between any two random subjects and say, "This is
>relevant to that," but it seems we've reached the point of
>stretching that potential beyond rationale. It started
>out as an exchange regarding problems with recording the
>clarinet, but it has been taken way beyond that now.
>
>Could you guys possibly take the discussion offline?
>Maybe you could form a new email group. Call it the
>Nykwist list (in honor of Klarinet, of course) and
>debate the Fourier Theorem and such to your little
>hearts' content.
>
>A couple of people whom I encouraged to join the list
>have cancelled their subscriptions because the unrelated
>and -- to them -- totally uninteresting subject material
>is clogging their email boxes.
>
>Thanks,
>Neil

Good point, Neil. But let's remember that this whole thing started with
someone (I don't remember who) making the factually erroneous statement
that said something to the effect of:

The clarinet sound cannot be captured well on digital recordings,
and it can be captured well on analog recordings.

This is patently false. End of story. The rest is explanation for those
who have the time to learn and understand why.

By avoiding the how and why of music, we often end up with large
discussions on this list that go on and on and are fueled by a never ending
fuel of misinformation. I, personally, find this more annoying than
discussions that get down to the meat of the why's and the how's of some
important clarinet-related issue such as recording the clarinet.

-------------------
Jonathan Cohler
cohler@-----.net