Now I'm curious about the converters themselves, especially digital to analogue.

"but at the point you place the microphone, you will only get one complex signal"

Thanks -- the movement of the microphone membrane, the speaker cone, or the record stylus -- it's 'one' complex wave.

I'm still wondering about something like this: "Nyquist frequency - The highest frequency *continuous signal* that can be represented by a discreet signal (for a given sampling frequency)"

And what band-limited means in practice.

To simplify, take my original three sinwaves, as the signal progresses there are at least 3 peaks every 19,800th of a second, if I'm sampling at around 40,000 time a second how can I 'catch' all peaks with a sample.

I can see that sampling over time can be taken into account but it seems like a bit much to expect something like say 20 violons each playing a more or less 9.8khz signal at the same time to be faitfully reproduced by sampling at 20khz.

Or am I still missing something.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'summed',

Not sure this is a good example but suppose for input you have a sinewave at 19,800 hz, one at 19,900 hz, and one at 20,000 hz and the second and third wave follow the first by 1/20,000 of a second and 1/19,000 seconds respectively, what would the output look like if you sampled at 41khz?

The video is accurate if one sine or square wave is sampled and reproduced, but what would happen with 3 sinewaves of similar frequency, or with more complex inputs closer to what 'music' looks like.

Yes.

"they don't want to reveal what concessions they are willing to make until they have a sense of the concessions other parties are willing to make"

And after, way before it is voted on, it can be made public?

whosh

Exaggerations, half truths, and lies. Why do you bother.

I did mess up my response to your "universally" comment. I should have said that it was obvious it wasn't universal. Or do you have a reference that it was universal.

Well, he did all of those things. Did you miss it? It's well-publicized.

Oh give it up. Link to something. Randy did not do any of those. Someone else who was close to him did.

The media, as it happens, were universally skeptical of "Carlos"

Universally. Not really. Some skeptical, some more, some less.

I'm not surprised that he lied, considering the risks he took

Kellogg's flat out lied about the great taste of their breakfast cereal. Flat out lied.

considering the risks he took. Identity theft, passport fraud, the list goes on

Yeah, right. What are *you* trying to imply with a list of things Randy did not do.

"What is this "we" you speak of?"

Me and my brothers and sisters "we" went ...
All our friends came over and "we" ...
During the family reunion "we" had ...
In our town "we" allow ...
Our nation survived, "we" won ...
All over the planet humans work to provide and support their children, "we" strive ...

I just read it. Basically nothing was said about food in the review, it was about the quality of service from the time they, the reviewer and her mother, arrived at the restaurant till the time they left. Where she went wrong I think is when she said a waitress was a harpy, and the restaurant owner or manager (the wording is not clear) was pretentious and acting like a diva.

"It's the analog stages and clean implementation & power supply which makes a difference"

That certainly helps. But I'm not convinced it's the whole story.

Monty's write up is interesting, what I'd like to see next is a similar setup but with two high frequency sine waves: the first sinewave has a fixed frequency and the second sinewave varies in frequency around the first.

"Mars has a much more predictable environment, so the risk of death should be much lower."

A vat of boiling oil has is also a more predictable environment.

So who is going to do it right ? i.e a longer than 90 day trial with enought rats, of the kind used for longer trials not the kind they used which is common practice for 90 day trials.