Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.8; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!newton2
From: newton2@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Noise-reduction units
Message-ID: <755@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 22:57:51 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.755
Posted: Wed Feb 20 22:57:51 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 04:15:31 EST
References: <589@charm.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Berkeley CA USA
Lines: 9

Gosh, have you *really* been reading the net? THE underlying argument, i.e.,
the issue which is the implicit reductio of all the *alleged* issues, is
precisely *what* is a "qualitative effect". The sampling rate "controversy"
wasn't (isn't) an argument "about" or between "facts" (i.e. mathematics),
it's been about "what is the question to which the sampling theorem is the
answer?". 

Let me me retreat slightly here: *some* of the persiflage has pertained to
mistatements of "facts", or what is claimed (or denied) to be such.